The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-03-29 00:00:00

SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES. On Friday morning, Mr. Justice Parke and Mr. gam itolfe,.accompanied by the high. sheriff, the mayor, and se. veral aldermen, proceeded at eleven o'clock to St. George's Church, to attend divine service. The assize sermon was preached by the sheriff's chaplain, the Rev. William Hornby, who took his text from Ist Epistle rneral of St. John, iv. 21—" And this commandment have we from him, that he who, loveth God, love his brother also." CROWN COURT-FRIDAY. Mr. Justice Parke took his seat upon the bench, at 20 minutes before 2 o'clock. The clerk of the crown then called the roll of gentlemen in the commission of the peace of the county ; and, as the gentlemen answered, the learned judge invited them to dine with him on Monday next. The mayors and coroners of this division of the county were then called ; and all answered to their names, except the mayor of Wigan, whom his lordship directed to be fined £5. The following gentlemen were then sworn of the grand jury : than. RICHARD BOOTLE WILBRAHAM, M.P., of Blythe Hall, Foreman. Sir Thomas Brancker, Lint., of Liverpool. James Aspinall, Esq., Liverpool. Henry Ashton, Esq., Woolton. Joseph Birley, Esq., Didshury. Peter Boune, Esq., Liverpool. Chisenhale Chisenhale, Esq., Arley Hall. William Earle, Esq:, Liverpool. John Smith Entwistle, Esq., Foxholes. James Hilton Ford, E sq . ainford. John Frederick Foster, Esq., Sale Priory. William Gale, Esq., Lightburn House- Robert Gladstone, Esq., Didshury. Teter Greenall, Esq., M.P., St. Helens. Richard Earle, Esq., Edenhurst. • Hugh Hornby, Esq., Sandown. 'George Hall Lawrence, Esq., Liverpool. Joseph Langton, Esq., Liverpool. Thomas Leyland, Esq., Walton Hall. John Shaw Leigh, Esq., Childwell Hall. . Henry Moss, Esq., Aigburth. Thomas Parr, Esq., Grapenhall Heyes. Francis Aspinall Phillips, Esq., Thornfield. Her Majesty's gracious proclamation against vice, im morality, and profaneness, having been read by the Clerk of the Crown, Mr. Justice Parke proceeded to deliver the charge to the grand jury, in the following terms : Gentlemen of the Grand Jury :—lt rarely happens, in the administration of criminal justice in this country, that a light burden is cast upon the gentlemen who form the grand inquest of this extensive and populous county ; and I am very sorry to find, that the present occasion will be no exception to the prevailing course, and that you will be called upon to investi gate a long list of offences, charged against not less than, as I conceive, a hundred prisoners, of differing degrees of magnitude, with but a few of a light trifling degrees,pf mag nitude, with but a view of a light or trifling nature; if, in deed, that expression can be applied CO any offences against the public, and dangerous to its peace and security. The great bulk, indeed, are of serious character ; many of an ag gravated description. 'I shall address but few observations to you respecting them; and, in making those observations, I hope you will consider that I am not to trespass upon your province. You are the proper judges of all questions of fact ; you will only receive from me the law, and apply it to the evidence before you. Amongst the long catalogue of crimes before us, the most serious ones are undoubtedly those which affect the life of the accused ;. which mustdepend, in the first place, upon the result of the evidence given before you. You will, of course, understand that I allude to the five charges of wilful murder against eight individuals. I shall advert to each of these cases, not in detail, but simply call your atten tion to the principal points in each case. The first, and hue of the most serious, of these charges, is a case in which, as it appears, a middle-aged wilinan was found dead, I think on Sunday morning the 14th November, in the neighbourhood of the churchyard in the town of Warrington; and the cir cumstances detailed in evidence before the coroner's jury would show, that the accused was seen in company with her down to a late period at night; and there is an attempt also to show, that early the following morning he was seen coming from th e di rect i on o f th place where the dead body was found ; but there is an obscurity as to the cause of that death, and you will have to say if it can• be attributed to the accused. She was found lying near ti rivulet, and had been immersed therein, though not overhead, in the course of the night. If you think that she fell in by accident, of course the charge of murder falls ; but if you think it is to he attributed to violence, loolttng at all the facts of the case, and that violence from the hand of the prisoner, then you have to treat it as a case of murder, and you will have to consider whether there are any facts which would reduce it below that offence.. Presuming that to be the fact which the surgeon states, that the death of the party was from the effects of suffocation—if. you think the act was done with that intention, no doubt the offence will he murder; or if you think that that was not. the intention of the prisoner, but that it occurredaccldentally in the course of a struggle, and in order to effect a robbery, or with the view (which the facts may possibly suggest) of a criminal assault—in both these cases, although violence was not in tended to that degree, yet in poins of law, if violence is in flicted with a felonious intent, and death ensues, the offence is murder; for that denotes that evil mind which is charac teristic of that offence. But upon another supposition the offence may be manslaughter only. The deceased was in a state of - great drunkenness •, and this must be taken into consideration, combined with the fact of the attempt upon her person. In all these cases, where violence is clearly at tributable to the hand of the accused, the law considers him guilty of the greater offence, unless circumstances be brought forward on the prisoner's behalf which should induce the jury to come to a contrary conclusion.—There is a second case, in which a person named Grayson appears to have met his death. Here the obscurity respecting the cause of death is much less ; there seems little doubt that it was owing to violence inflicted upon him by somebody; he was found in the morning breathing his last; and no doubt his death was attributable to unlawful and felonious violence on the part of some person. You will have to investigate the case against three persons, who are accused of jointly robbing him, and of murdering him in that attempt to rob. Circumstances will be laid before you as affecting each, and you are to consider them, and - see what are accurately proved; for here a great deal depends upon tie accuracy of the witnesses. If they satisfy your minds as to their accuracy, and if, putting their evidence together, you think, as reasonable men, that the three prisoners are the same men that joined in the .attack, it will be your duty to find them guilty. There are three other cases, of somewhat different character. ~_ In one it. ap.,- pears, that a pauper in a workhouse made an assault upon another pauper with hands and feet, merely in consequence of the deceased not having paid him Is 6d which he owed him. In that case, according to the testimony of the surgeon. there will be a doubt whether the accused is of sound mind. But I advise you to dismiss from your minds all considera tion as to his sanity ; for this plain reason, that, if you ignore the bill on the ground of insanity, the prisoner will remain at large ; whereas, if you find a true bill, he will be a prisoner during the queen's pleasure, and not allowed to go at large again, until certified to be in a sane state. Then you will see whether there are circumstances in the case to re duce the offence to manslaughter, or whether you must con clude that it was murdef. In this case, no dangerous instrument was used ; nothing but hands and feet : and this forms n.marked distinction as compared with cases where a deadly instrument is used, in the absence of mitigating cir cumstances. But where a man uses his hands and feet only, it is a question whether lie is actuated by the barbarous dis position characteristic of murder ; and that will depend very much upon the degree and extent of force he used. You are to say here, whether so much violence was used as to indicate that malignant disposition which I have before adverted to. If you are not satisfied as to this, that offence will amount to manslaughter only.—There is another case of the same des cription, in which the death of a young man has been caused by two other young men, both of the age of 18, in consequence of some quarrel at a low theatre in this town. The young man was assaulted by them as he came out, in consequence of some supposed insult offered to one of the actresses on the stage. He was there beaten; and in two or three days after, from the result of that beating, he died. You will have to consider, . whether the beating was with that excessive violence that you can say it was either the intention of the parties to destroy life, or to effect some grievous bodily harm. If you think the intent was merely to give an ordi nary beating, then the offence will be manslaughter only. The last case is one of a very painful nature : in that case, unquestionably, a brother died by the hand of a brother. The wound was inflicted in the abdomen. It was a slight one, but resulted in the death of the deceased, in consequence of a morbid state of the part in which the wound was in flicted. I need not tell you, that, if the effect of a blow by the hand of a prisoner is to shorten life never so little,—it it cause him to die at an earlier period than he would have died, then the accused is responsible. But, in the case of the ac cused, there are circumstances worthy of consideration, which tend to shew that that blow was not the effect - of ma lice, but arose from a sudden transport of passion, created by a quarrel between him and the deceased, and you are well aware of the law as to provocation ; and that if a wound is to bttributed to passion, excited by provocation, and not to ma lignity of heart, in that case the offence will be manslaughter. In that case also both the accused and the deceased were in a state of great intoxication ; but you well know, that volun tary intoxication is no excuse for any crime. If it were there are few cases of violence in . which prisoners would not es cape just punishment. But, although it is no excuse, it may be also taken into consideration when there is actual provocation, to show that the fatal blow is to be attributed to the comparatively vtnial passion of anger, instead of a ma lignant disposition ; and, taking these into your consideration, if you think that the blow was given in a sudden transport of passion, the charge of murder must fail. Those are the serious cases in the calendar in which a capital offence is charged against the accused. I think it unnecessary to ad vert to other cases of the same description ; and upon many, indeed, contained in this calendar. I am unable to do so, because of the very short period that has elapsed since I came into this place, that I have been unable to make myself mas ter of the details. Should anything occur, upon a further perusal, to make it necessary for me to give you farther ad vice and assistauce, I shall request you tO attend here for that purpose ; but in all probability it will not be necessary. But, before I dismiss you, I will call your attention to one other case, which is not in the calendar, but of which I have read the depositions. It is a charge against a surgeon of manslaughter, that either by negligence, or want of proper skill, he caused the death of a female inmate of a workhouse. It is not for me to give any opinion as to the course which the coroner's jury have chosen to pursue on this occasion ; but unless the facts appear very different from what are stated on tile depositions, it is perfectly unjustifiable to find a verdict of manslaughter against the prisoner. Upon the law of this subject there is no doubt. The law is, that a person who holds himself as possessing medical skill is bound to give that skill wherever required,; and if death result, by faiilure. of that skill, or from want of the attention which every medical man is bound to bestow upon his patients, he is amenable to justice, and is guilty -of manslaughter. But these are cases which require to be narrowly watched ; and in no case ought a man to be made a felon (which lie is if guilty of manslaughter), unless it appears that he broadly and distinctly violates some well-known rule of practice, or is guilty of some gross and manifest dereliction of duty in reference to the party employing him or the party under his ' care. Here you have to consider whether - either. a want. idetnhase, case t wa s the that usual s the of skill or a want o f care be made out against the party . charged; If, according to the evidence, Practice adopted by the surgeon and proper practice , and if the dea lli th the_ deceased appears to have arisen, not from. the adoption of that practice, but from the want of due care on the part of the deceased her self, in not covering herself up to take care of cold, is a mat ter into which you will inquire. You will see whether the surgeon is guilty of any subsequent negligence ; if no t, i t w i ll e be your duty to dismiss the a strictly watched ; for, even supposing the gentleman acc use d be acquitted, the effects upon his pro fessional reputation, an d ' upon his peace of mind, generally t urn out to. be extremely I request you to exe rc i se severe. With these observations , . the facts _ your own judgment in that case; unless facts be - different from what I have collected from the depositions, probably you will have very .little doubt abo ut the re sult. With these observations, I will now dismiss you to your duties. The grand jury then withdrew. The petit jury, bill was were sworn, but it was half-past three o'clock, before any re turned, where the parties did not plead guilty. BIGAMY. - Mary Edteslon (47); indicted for having on the 26th Sep tember, 1811, married Samuel Goulding,, at Warrington, — her husband, Thomas Edleston, whom she married at Liver pool on the 28th August, 1814, being still alive,—pleaded iluilly, and in extenuation urged that her husband had been a long time away from her, nine years.; and that lie was also married again. She admitted that her husband had paid her a small allowance.—Mr. Justice Parke, in passing sentence, said, that the husband's absence or bigamy was no excuse for the prisoner's crime, which ► however, was not to serious an offence as bigamy on the part of a husband ► because of the injury inflicted on the female be pretended to marry. His lordship sentenced the prisoner to four months' imprison ment to hard labour in the Kirkdale house of correction. CHARGE OF FORGERY. Jonathan Collins, jun., 37, of Heap, was indicted for ut tering a bill for £2OO, with a forged endorsement, purporting to be that of his own father, with intent to defraud John Schofield, cotton dealer, of Liverpool, of that amount. The payment of the bill by the prisoner to the prosecutor was proved by the evidence of the latter, in part payment of a debt of about £370 ; £l3O being paid previously to the bill, and the balance of £37 Os. afterwards. It appeared for the defence, by the evidence of the prisoner's father, that he had given the prisoner an unlimited power to use his name to bills, &c.—The jury acquitted the prisoner. HORSE STEALING. William Shaw, alias Joseph William Clarke, 25, indicted for having stolen, at Salford, a bay mare, a set of gig harness, and a whip, the property of George Adam Green—pleaded tiailty.—The learned Judge, in passing sentence, said, the prisoner had been before convicted of horse stealing, and then sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment ; and it was the duty of the court to take care, that, for a long period of his life, he should not again be permitted to commit this of fence in this country. The prisoner was then sentenced to fifteen years' transportation. BIGAMY. Mary Taylor, 24, indicted for having married Thomas Murtiew, at Wigan, in the lifetime of her husband, John Taylor, to whom she was married at Liverpool, in May, 1838—pleaded guilty. It appeared,, however, that the pri soner supposed her husband to be dead, as she had not heard cf him for some time ; and there had been a report that he was drowned in the Clarence Dock. Under these circum stances, and considering that the prisoner had been in cus tody since August last, the learned judge said, justice would be answered by his sentencing her to two days' imprisonment. NISI PRiUS COURT.—FamAr. Mr. Baron ROLFE took his seat on the bench at twenty minutes to two o'clock. The counsel within the bar are Mr. Sergeant Atcherley, attorney-general of the county palatine; • Mr. Sergeant Murphy, Mr. Starkie, Mr. Dundas, the lion. J. Stuart Wortley, Sir Gregory Lewin, Mr. Baines, Mr. Armstrong, and Mr. Knowles. Mr. Alexander is not suffi ciently recovered to resume . his duties ; nor were all we have named present to-day. On the evening of Thursday an application was made to their lordships, to order the sheriff to return a writ, which bad been issued for the purpose of summoning four knights to appear in court on the first day of the assizes, to try a writ of right to the possession of some property in Chorlton on-Medlock. The writ was produced, and the following names called over :—Sir Thomas Potter, of Manchester ; Sir Thomas 13rancker, Sir Joshua Walmaley, and Sir George Drinkwater, of Liverpool. Three of the gentlemen an swereci to their names; but 4oshita Walmsley did not appear ; and, after some time spent in endeavouring to ascer tain whether he had been regularly summoned, it was at length agreed, by the consent of both parties, that the mat ter should stand over till the following day, and should be treated as if done on the first day of the assizes. Mr. Justice Parke intimated, that Sir Joshua Walmsley ought to be informed, that he would be required to attend in court next day. This morning the preliminary steps in this now almost obsolete legal proceeding were taken shortly after the sitting of the court. The four knights, Sir Thomas Potter, Sir Joshua 'Walmsley, Sir Thomas Brancker, and Sir Thomas Drinkwater, were sworn to summon and impannel twenty good men and true, to try a writ of right. They then chose from the jury list twenty names, which were read by the crier.—Mr. Archbold, counsel for Mr. Charles Rishton, the demandant, stated that the trial could not take place at the present assizes, as the act required the jury process to issue and bear teste, before the first day of the assizes, which had not been doue.—Mr. Starkie, Q.C., counsel for the tenant, Anthony Nesbit, tendered demi-marque it it were necessary to do so.—Mr. Archbold said, it was not necessary till the time of the trial. We understand that this case is one of considerable importance, involving, indeed, it is said, the freehold of perhaps one-half of the township of Chorlton-on- Medlock. The demandant claims an-interest as the surviving representative of Barbara Aytoun, and the case will turn very much on pedigrees and genealogy. It is somewhat remark able that an inquiry of this nature should come into the courts sonic eight or ten years after the passing of a statute which took away the right of having this peculiar form of action. We understand that, in fact, this writ was issued only a few days before the passing of that act. The last cases of writs of right, of which we have any information, were Angell v. Angell, tried at York in the year 1816, and Hardman v. Clegg, tried at Lancaster in 1817 ; and we be lieve that the- case now under notice. Rishton v. Nesbit, is the last writ of right that ever can be tried in this country, being the very last writ issued, and the only one outstanding. The causes taken during the afternoon were of no general interest. CROWN COURT—SATURDAY. Mr. Justice Park took his seat on the bench at nine o'clock. BIGAMY Thomas Lloyd, aged 43, was indicted fur having feloniously married, at Liverpool, in January last, one Margaret Lea therbarrow, his former wife, Elizabeth Walworth, being then alive. The prisoner having pleaded not guilty, Mr. MONK proceeded to address the jury for the prosecution, but had scarcely entered upon the facts before the prisoner withdrew bis plea, and pleaded guilty. The prisoner said that he had allowed his first wife 10s. a week, and that he had maintained both wives. It appeared that he had made the allowance stated ; but the JUDGE did not consider this fact any pallia tion. His lordship called the second wife, a young woman of 22 years of age, and she stated, in reply to a question whe ther the prisoner had informed het' that he was previously married to another person then alive, that he had made no such statement, but had represen.t i ed himself as a widower. His LORDSHIP said that the prisoner had gained nothing by withdrawing his plea, for the evidence would have clearly proved the offence. He had inflicted a grievous injury on Margaret Leatherbarroiy, by placing her in a position as his legitiMate wife. For this offence he must be imprisoned for twelve calendar months, and, during that time, to be kept to hard labour. BURGLARY. John Thomason, 19, stood charged with having, at Cul cheth, burglariously broken and entered the dwelling-house of Samuel Hindley, and stolen therefrom two pairs of shoes and other articles, the property of-the said Samuel Hindley, and also of Isaac Hindley. On the night of the 19th November, the prosecutor and his family retired to bed, the windows being previously secured. In the morning, when the prosecutor got up, he found the window had seen broken open with apparently, a piece of plane-tree, which was found, and the opening was large enough to admit the prisoner. He afterwards found that the articles stated, two pairs of shoes and some bread, his own property, and some cheese and bacon, belonging to his bro ther, Isaac Hindley, had been stolen. Thomas FlindleY, another brother, said he slept on the ground floor, and was disturbed in the night' by a person striking a light with a lucifer match. The person went out of the room, but returned a second time. Witness was so much alarmed that he durst not stir. The person was like a boy. • •- • On the same evening, about a quarter to eight o'clock, the prisoner, it was further proved, was seen in St. Helens, (ten miles off,) and there pledged the shoes, which were identified. When apprehended, part of the bread, cheese, and bacon were found upon him, and he afterwards admitted to the po lice officer that he broke into the house. The jury immediately found the prisoner guilty. His LORDSHIP sentenced the prisoner to be transported for ten years, which he stated was the shortest period the law pointed out for the offence. ROBBERY FROM THE PERSON. Denis Towers, 25, was charged with having stolen sixteen soverigns from the person of Mr. John Collinson. Johu Collinson said he lived at Salisbury. On the 16th March last he took ten dresses to Longridge fair, and sold them for £l6 10s. He left the fair about four in the after noon. He saw the prisoner there, who left the fair with him, and went some distance with him. They parted near Rib chester, and the witness sat down by the road side. The pri soner came up to him, knocked him down, put Kis hand in his pocket, took out the money by force and ran off with it. One of the sovereigns fell on the ground, and was found on the fol lowing morning. Witness had known prisoner from his in fancy. When prisoner ran off, witness cried, " Denis, what are you taking my money for ? 'Witness was rather intoxi cated. A police officer at Bolton received the prisoner in charge, and read to him a report of the robbery. Prisoner then admitted that he knew Collinson; that he had accompa nied him from the fair; and had found fifteen sovereigns on the road, which he knew to be the prosecutor's. He denied having knocked down the prosecutor, and said he would not account for not having returned the money to the owner. He also said he had bought the suit of clothes he had on with part of the money. Another officer, who apprehended the prisoner on Sunday last,lound a watch and four sovereigns on his person. He also admitted having bought the watch. • The jury found the prisoner guilty of taking money from the prosecutor's person. There being another indictment against the prisoner, he was put down. DURGLARY AND ATTEMPT TO RAVISH. Francis Miller, 30, was charged with having, at Heaton Norris, broken into and entered the dwelling-house of Thos. Williamson, with intent to commit a felony. Ellen Williamson, wife of Thomas Williamson, cotton spinner, Norris, Heaton said, that on S un d a y, th e 22d o f August last, her husband was from home. - She went to bed a little after nine, having locked the door and fastened the windows. About half-past eleven she was wakened by the prisoner crying " Ellen ! " There was a light from the street, by which she knew the prisoner.. She had known the prisoner for more than a year. She jumped up, and he took hold of her by the nightgown: It tore, and he lost his hold, and she escaped. He said, " I shall not lie with our Mary Ann to-night; 1 shall lie with you." He was partly undressed. Witness cried " Oh, dear ! " and he said, " Don't make a din." When she went down stairs, she found the table against the door,-Which she removed and gut into the street. It was the outer door. The key was left in the lock inside. There was also an iron drop-latch which was fastened at night, but was opened and bent when she came down. She saw Mrs. Bucktrout, and told her the prisoner was up stairs in her bedroom. Prisoner asked Mrs. Bucktrout not to say anything, and witness said to him, "Go away, you dirty vagabond! If she does not tell, 1 will." The key was found on the ground. • -She afterwards returned to bed. In the morning, she found a key with a piece of leather attached to it. She thought the key, when she left it, would be crossway when she locked the door at night. She found several marks on the door, between it and the cheek. There was nothing outside the door by which the drop-latch could lie opened. The drop was bent, so that the door could not be fastened by it. The prisoner asked her next day to give him back the key, which she refused. The prisoner afterwards came with another . man and wanted to repair the door, but she would not allow them. He also offered her a. sovereign to say nothing about it. The prisoner lived near their house. She got a warrant for the prisoner, which cost her ss. 6d, Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—The man who came 'with the prisoner was named Leech. She was in Leech's house the night before, and there drank twice some wine. The prisoner said, at first, that it was only beer. She supped that night at Leech's. Her own fire was out, and she cooked her own supper, a beefsteak. Leech, she had heard, had since gone to America. A chisel was found in Leech's house, as she had heard, which fitted the marks. The prisoner said he'd rather give a sovereign than have any work about it. Ellen Bucktrout, wife of the watchman, saw Mr. William.. sen that morning. She said "Frank" had broken into the house, and was there. Witness saw Frank come out. She asked him how he could find in his heart to do so, and her husband not at home. She said she had locked the door and left the key in, and witness remarked, " I think nobody could have got in, if you had left it." She (witness) after wards picked up the key. When he came out, witness said, " Frank, you're tipsy, and so is she," and be said he was. She found a key outside the door; and took it out and gave it to the prisoner. She found that key first before she picked up the other on the floor. Cross -examined.—Mrs. Williamson said they had both been drinking.. She saw her (prosecntrix) at the door about twenty minutes to twelve o'clock. She was iu her night shirt. Witness said to Miller, " I saw a man under this lamp before," and she said, " Yes, that will be Bill Leech. Ite has had a bit of a lark with me." Witness then scolded them both. M rs . Wi lliamson was very t i psy t h at n i ght. Tames Hammond, police serjeant, served the warrant on ti.e prisoner, and read it to him. He got a key with a piece of leather fastened to it, and showed it to the prisoner, ask ing him if he knew he had left it in Mrs. Williamson's bed room. He P§id he k ne W nothing about it. He found a crow-bar at Leech's. The prisoner said he knew nothing about it. The latch was bent outwardS, by, it appeared, forc- Jug the door. Leech, It wail said, had gone to America, Witness bad searched for him since, but had not found him. Leech was before the magistrates, and his deposition was taken. Mrs. Williamson recalled.—l have never borrowed a key from Leech's to open my door. Mr. WILICINg ably addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He contended that the prosecutrix was not in a state of mind to tell the true facts of the ease, for it was in evidence that she was drunk. There was a discrepancy in her testimony as regarded the time. When the prisoner told her that he could not sleep in his own bed and would sleep with her, it was the language of a man who thought that, after being drunk with her in a neighbour's house, he should be well received. Besides, she had not complained to Mrs. Bucktrout that her shift was torn, and that person never saw it. The watchma►t was within hail at the time, yet she made no outcry. She only said, " Oh, dear !" and called no one. Her being so quiet was a pt esumption that, when seen by Mrs. Bucktrout, she accused the prisoner to prevent a disclosure to her husband, and to give a favourable colour ing to her own conduct. With respect to the offer of the sovereign, it was natural the prisoner should do so, to pre vent anything unpleasant, on the part of the husband, against himself. He contended, that, taking the whole of the cir cumstances, the reasonable inference was, that the prosecu trix had given the prisoner such encouragement as, while it would not justify his conduct in a moral point of view, yet removed him from the legal grievance of the offence. With regard to the burglary, if committed at all, it was, probably, done by Leech. The prosecutrix, it should also be remem bered, had admitted having had " a lark" with that indivi dual, who had left the country, and had been drinking with him and the prisoner until she became intoxicated. The learned JUDGE summed up with great perspicuity, leaving the charge of the felonious intent to ravish in the hands of the jury. The Jury, after consulting for about ten' minutes, re turned a verdict of Not nuilty. BuncLARY. Abraham Mills, 31, Abraham Hardy,29, Thomas Stand vin, 42, Benjamin Chadwick, 37, John Cocker, 31, and William Platt, 32, were indicted on a charge of having broken into the dwelling-house of Josiah Taylor, at Ashton under-Lyne, and stolen thereout two jugs and twenty pipes, the property of Taylor. Mr. Brandt and another conducted the prosecution. Josiah Taylor said, that when his family went to bed on the 28th September, the windows and door were made fast. About two o'clock in the morning he heard an unusual noise. The house is on the public road. He got up and opened the door. Ile kept a shop. In front there was a yard or fold. He saw a man named Cheetham with a man down, and who said some men had been robbing the house. He saw the kitchen window forced open. That window had been fas tened. The pointing had been removed and the window forced outwards. A. pane in the -shop window had been broken, and the rods cut and removed.: Several articles were removed and put outside. The man Cheetham had down was the prisoner Mills, who seemed to he sober. Travis Cheetham said, he had been that night beyond Old ham, to see a sick relation. He returned home with Ann Diggle and his own wife. When he came near Taylor's house with Diggle, (his wife'being behind,) he saw four men stand ing in the fold. Standvin was one of them. He (witness) cried " Iloilo !" and Standvin came'within two yards of him. He had stockings on but no shoes. Three other men came out of the shop without shoes, stockings, or coats. He.got a man to assist him and went back to the house. Three men were then standing in the fold, whom he did not know. He said, " Now lads !" and they ran off. Three others then came out of the shop window. The first that came escaped. The other two struggled, trying which should get out first. One of them said he would stick him. Witness struck him down with a poker. That was the prisoner Hardy. Mills then came out and was secured. The three last that came out had neither coats nor waistcoats. The other men outside had coats, &c., in their hands. Mr. COLIBETT and others defended several of the prisoners respectively. Witness, in cross-examination, said that John Diggle was the man who assisted him. Mills was not drunk. It was very light, the moon being nearly at the full. Ann Diggle, wife of John Diggle, corroborated her husband in the principal facts. She saw six or seven men standing opposite Taylor's shop window, some of them stripped. She identified Mills, Hardy, and Platt. Platt first ran away. Hardy next came out of the window, and swore he'd stick Cheetham, who knocked him down. Mills got fast to the coffee-mill handle in coming out, and her husband secured him and kept him. He was taken into Taylor's house. Cross-examined.—l always said there were six or seven men in the fold when I came up. 1 cannot read. Mrs. Cheetham stayed a little behind when her husband and Ann Diggle went up to the house. She saw six or seven men in the fold, all stripped as described. She spoke to the whole of the prisoners, who were standing there. Cocker was throwing his coat.cwer his head. He stooped down, and paid " Heigh !" to her. She left them in the fold. Cross-examined by Mr. CosnErr.—l never saw the pri soners before. I saw them afterwards at Ashton. I saw them three different times when they were in custody. Jas. Maiden was called by her husband, along with Diggle, to assist that night. She first saw only five of the prisoners. John Diggle was called up on the morning in question by Cheetham. When he got to Taylor's, he saw four men with clothes in their hands. He saw two other men come out of the window. lie himself took hold of Mills. Cocker was then about four yards off. Matthew Maiden, constable, of Ashton, saw the prisoner Mills detained at Taylor's. He said he had never been nearer the house than the middle of the road. Witness asked him why he was without his clothes, and he said he had been wrestling with a man on the road. He produced part of the lead-light taken from the shop window. He found three keys on Mills, one a skeleton key. He found Standvin and Cocker at a public-house five or six miles off. William Robinson, a waiter, said he was waiting at the Three Crowns public-house, in Ashton, on the evening of the 28th.. All the prisoners were there. They were of one com pany, and drank together. They left about twelve o'clock and did not return. Platt had a blue coat and a black hat. Cross-examined.—They came about eight o'clock. Duck infield wakes were on about the time. That is about a quar ter of a mile from Taylor's house. Sometimes people amus ing themselves iu that part of the country, take off part of their clothes. Robert Newton, deputy-constable at Ashton, found Hardy in bed at Shaw. He charged him with being at Taylor's house on the 28th September. He said he was in bed that night at ten o'clock. lie found a pair of shoes in the room. The shoes were afters;ards shown to Mills, who said they were his, and the same he had on on the night he was at Taylor's. Witness was present when Standvin and Cocker were stopped in a lane. Cocker said he had only been at the wakes with Standvin, and knew nothing of the robbery. - Guthy, deputy constable of Staley Bridge, found a coat and hat. The hat had marks of blood, corresponding with a wound on Hardy's head. Hardy afterwards owned the coat and hat. Thomas Buckley knew Platt. He met him at Barren Shaw, about six o'clock, on the evening in question. He (Platt) had on a blue coat and a black hats Joseph Wylde, constable of Ashton, knew all the prisoners. They all lived in Crompton. He charged Standvin with being concerned in the robbery,.which he denied, saying he was in bed. He also apprehended Chadwick. The statement made by the prisoners before the magis trates was read against him. Mr. COBBETT addressed the jury on behalf of the priso ners Standvin, Cocker, and Chadwick, in a very ingenious manner,' contending that though they were with the other prisoners at the public-house, where they had been drinking hard, there was no positive proof that they were at Taylor's house, or acting in concert with those that committed the burglary. Mr. BLAIR spoke for Platt and Mills, dwelling pricipally upon the assumption of the principal witnesses as to the identifying of the prisoners, which he considered, under the circumstances, extremely difficult, if not impossible. Only one of the witnesses spoke to being present. The JUDGE summed up the evidence, stating the case as affecting the prisoners respectively, requiring the jury to con sider each case seriatim. The jury found all the prisoners guilty. His LORDSHIP called Wylde a constable, and asked him what he knew of the prisoners, and stated that some of them were thieves, and others associates of thieves. His lordship said they had been found guilty, and, after a careful investi gation, the evidence was satisfactory to his mind. They, doubtless, intended to carry off the whole contents of the shop, had they not been detected. The sentence of the court was, that they should each be transported for seven years. The trial lasted upwards of three hours. STEALING A POST-OFFICE LETTER. Henry Edward Weinzar, a genteel looking young man, was arraigned on a charge Of having, at Liverpool, stolen a letter which had come into his possession by virtue of his em ployment, he being a clerk in the Post-office. He pleaded guilty. Mr: WILKINS, counsel for the prisoner, requested his lordship to defer passing sentence until Monday, as he had learned that several witnesses could then appear in court to his character. His LORDSHIP acquiesced. The counsel for the prosecution said, in consequence of a recent act, together with the circumstances of the-case, it was proposed to proceed against the prisoner for the petty larce ny. The prisoner was then put down. UNFOUNDED CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER. In the case of Mr. Joseph Lomax Heap, surgeon, who was indicted for the manslaughter of one Margaret Heyworth, through inattention and want of skill, the grand jury cut the bill, and expressed an unanimous opinion, through their fore man, that they did not find the slightest ground for such a charge, which arose out of a verdict of the coroner's jury. Mr. BRANDT stated the charge, in brief, to the jury, and said he should not adduce any evidence against Mr. Heap. The learned JUDGE said, that he had read the depositions, and entirely concurred with the grand jury. There was not the smallest imputation on Mr. heap's professional charac ter, either as regarded want of skill or attention to the de ceased, and he would leave the court with unblemished repu tation. It was, certainly, a hard case for him that he should have been put to the trouble and expense of attending there. A verdict of acquittal was then taken, and Mr. Heap bowed and retired. BURGLARY. Two men, Arrowsmith and llorrocks, were indicted for breaking into the dwelling-house of John Taylor, at Little, Bolton, and 'taking therefrom, on the 12th December, seve ral articles of wearing apparel, &c., the property of the said John Taylor. John Taylor said, that he lived in Little Bolton, where he was a housekeeper. On Sunday, the 12th of December, he went out, and left to go to church, and on his return, a little before nine, he found the door npen, and missed a wearing jacket, two waistcoats, a counterpane, and a pair of trowsers. He saw the articles on Saturday. James Grime, police-officer, said the prisoners were in the lock-up, at Little Bolton, on the 15th December. Horrocks called him to the separate cell where he was confined, and said he had something to say. Witness told him he must tell the magistrates. Prisoner said he .did not 'care: they had done their worst to him, and he should do his worst at them. He acknowledged that he and the other prisoner and a man, named Yates, had taken the articles from the house. He produced the waistcoats. He said he had pledged them, and gave witness the ticket. A witness stated that Arrowsmith pledged the waistcoats for a shilline. Prisoner said his name was William Smith. That was on the 15th December. Harris; a constable, took a pair of trowsers from Arrow smith. The prosecutor identified the articles last mentioned. The lock of the house was either picked or the door was forced. Arrowsmith said he bought the trowsers and waistcoats from a man, and did not know they were stolen. Horrocks . said he was not at the prosecutor's house at all. The other prisoner gave him the ticket. A man, named Yates, said he saw Arrowsmith with a man who had some old clothes to sell, and he came from him with two waistcoats and a pair of trousers. Witness was a pri soner on a Mint charge. His LORDSIIIP summed up, and the Jury . found both the prisoners Guilty. As there was another indictment to be preferred against them, they were put down. The Court then rose for the day, it being ten minutes to five o'clock. NISI PBIUS COURT.—SATURDAY. The learned Baron took his seat a little after nine o'clock. ALLAN V. LOWE. Mr. WATSON, for the defendant in this case, applied for the postponement of the trial till a late day in the Assizes, on the ground that his attorney, who was named Wood, had recently died. The death took place on the 7th instant, but the defendant had '.no notice of it till the 14th, and, there fore, he Lad nut yet had sufficient time to instruct another. gentleman. The learned BARON granted a rule to show cause why the trial should not be postponed till Monday week. MOSLRY V. MUD. This was an action brought by Sir Oswald Mosley, Bart., Lord of the Manor of Manchester, to recover damages from the defendant, James Bird, a butcher, for an infringement of his manorial rights, by selling butcher's meat in his private house. Mr. Starkey and Mr. Brandt appeared for the plaintiff ; the defendant was not represented by counsel. The declaration stated, that, on the Ist day of January, 1539, the plaintiff was possessed of the right to hold markets, within the town of Manchester, upon every Tuesday, Thurs day, and Saturday, except . on Christmas and New Year's Days, and that all persons selling meat in Manchester were bound to do so in the plaintiff's market. The defendant sold meat in his private house to the injury of the plaintiff. The defendant, in his replication, said, that the plaintiff was not lawfully possessed of such market, and that he had no right tocompel butchers to sell in that market ; and upon this issue was joined. Mr. STARKEY then stated the case, and called Mr. Samuel Kaye, steward of the manor, who proved the rights of the plaintiff as stated in the declaration; and Mr. Noton, clerk of the markets, who proved that the defendant had sold meat in hi.s private house for four years, and that the rent of a stall in the market would have been £8 per annum. The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £32, being the amount of four years rent. HARROP AND ANOTHER, ASSIGNEES, V. CARTER. This was an undefended action to recover the sum of £BO 93. 11d., for goods sold and delivered. The plaintiffs are the assignees of Messrs. Smith, Edgeley, and Smith, of Manchester, and the defendant is a draper at Huddersfield. The order and delivery of the goods having been proved, the jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed. MARSDEN V. LOCKETT. The plaintiff, Thomas Marsden, is a machine-maker in Manchester, and the defendant is an engraver in the same town. The action, which was undefended, was brought to. recover £37 Hs. 11d., the balance of an account for goods sold and money lent. Verdict for the plaintiff. . _ _ MA LIALIELT V. EDMUNDSON. This w•as an undefended action brought to recover £25, lent by the plaintiff to the defendant in October last. The par ties are in business in Manchester. Verdict for the plaintiff. BURDEKIN V. MORRIS. An undefended action on a bill of exchange for £24 95.6 d. Verdict for the plaintiff. WOOD AND OTHERS V. GLOVER. Undefended. Verdict for the plaintiffs, damages £2l. THWAITES AND ANOTHER V. LEECH. Undefended. Verdict for the plaintiffs, damages £25 16s. FOSTER V. CHADWICK. An undefended action to recover £27 125., for goods sold and delivered. Verdict for the plaintiff. EDMONDSON V. lIORSFIELD. Mr. Wortley and Mr. Watson appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Martin for:the defendant.- The plaintiff-is a wine and spirit merchant: in Manchester ; and the defendant is the landlord of the Swan Inn, Market -street, in the same town, and the action was brought to recover £73, for goods sold and delivered. The principal question in the case turned upon the pleas which had been put in by the defendant, one of which was, that payments had been made by him, and another alleged a set-off. The details were uninteresting. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £4B 13s. "CONVERSION" OF A POODLE—BLAIR V. lIALDRED. This was an action in trover for the conversion of a dog. Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wilkins for the defendant. ' Mr. MARTIN stated, that the plaintiff was Mr. Harrison Blair, an attorney, of Manchester, residing at Cheetwood, and the defendant was Peter Haldred, a dealer in rags. The action was brought to recover the value of a dog which be longed to the plaintiff, and which had come into the posses sion of the defendant, he (the learned counsel) knew not how. In July last, Mr. Blair bought a couple of exceedingly pretty and small poodles; one of them died shortly afterwards, and this circumstance caused the survivor to become a still greater favourite. It remained safe in the house for three or four months, but one morning it was missed, and for some time nothing could be heard of it. The dog was found by Mrs. Halliwell, the mother of a boy employed by Mr. Blair. She had heard a description of the missing animal, and, being convinced this was it, she secured it till her son came home in the evening, when he identified it, and it was, con sequently, sent home. Haldred, the defendant, applied to Mrs. Halliwell for the dog : she told him what she had done with it, and thereupon he went to Mr. Blair's house. There was nobody in but Mrs. Blair and the servant. He went into the kitchen, seized the dog, and carried it off, saying, that if it was Mr. Blair's, he must prove that fact, and be should have it. The dogs had cost £2 2s. each. It was quite impossible to suppose that Mr. Blair had brought this action for the sake of the costs : any one who was unac quainted with his character would at once acquit him of that : indeed, the defendant had nothing to pay with. Mr. Blair had brought the action, not for any private purpose, but to show such people as the defendant, that they could not do these things with impunity, and that property, whatever it was, must be protected. _ Several witnesses were then called, whose testimony cor roborated the statement of the learned counsel. Mr. WILKINS next addressed the court, on the part of the defendant, in a speech of considerable pleasantry. In :he course of his observations he produced the dog, whose ap pearance, combined with one or two jocular remarks, pro duced much laughter. He should prove this to be the iden tical dog which Mr. Blair alleged the defendant had con verted, and that the defendant had bought it, long before it had got into Mr. Blair's possession, from a breeder, at Stockport. In short, he should clearly establish the owner ship of the animal to be in the defendant. Witnesses were produced, and their evidence established the facts as alleged by the defendant. The jury, after consulting in their box for a quarter of an hour, and, subsequently, being locked up for an hour, re turned a verdict for the defendant. EJECTMENT.—DOE DEM WRIGLEY V. DRANSFIELD AND OTHERS. The declaration alleged, that the plaintiff William Wrig ley, had had demi s ed to him certain tenements, from w hi c h the defendants had ejected him. The defendants pleaded not guilty. Mr. WORTLEY, for the plaintiff, said he sought to recover possession of a cotton-mill and other property, in the pos session of the defendants. The plaintiff w as t h e propr i e t or of certain coal mines and other property, in the parish of Oldham, and he was in the habit of supplying the defendants, Richard, John, and George Dranstield, with coals. In 1836, the defendants became embarrassed,: and in want of money. They applied to the plaintiff for assistance, add - he advanced to them £1,500, taking, b 1), a of security, a mortgage on the mill (Hopkins' Mill), and it was under that deed of mortgage that he sought to recover possession of the property. Since that time, the mill had been burnt down ; the defendants became more embarrassed; and great harm was likely to be done to the property, unless, by this action, it could be protected front injury. The mortgage deed contained a power to sell the property. The deed of mortgage was then put in, and the essential parts of it were read. Mr. KNOWLES, who appeared for the de fendants, said he felt he had no legal defence to this action ; and he appealed to his learned friend to give the defendants time to pay this money. He trusted he should have his lordship's recom- ^ mendation to that effect. Mr. Baron ROLFE said he could make no suggestion. He was there to sift and try the facts of the case, and he could not interfere. _ Mr. KNOWLES said the interest had never fallen in arrear ; and the mill was worth twice as much as the plaintiff claimed. Mr. Baron ROLFE repeated, that he could not interfere. Mr. WORTLEY said his client had actually sold the pro perty to the parties, and it was to protect their title that the action was brought. Some arrangement, perhaps, might be come to out of doors, but he could make none in court. A verdict was then taken for the plaintiff. Damages and costs 40s. STEPHENS V. HADFIELD. This was an action brought by a builder, in Manchester, to recover from the defendant the sum of ±:302, for work and labour done in erecting sixteen cottages, ix the township of Huhne. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Martin appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Dundas and Mr. Cowling for the defendants. Evidence was produced, on the part of the plaintiff, that he had erected the buildings at the request of the defendant, but that there was no written agreement between them, and also of the value of the labour done. On the part of the defence, Mr. DUNDAS said he should show, that, before the houses were completed, Hadfield sold the laud and the erections upon it to a Mr. Ormerod, from which time he ceased to take any interest in the property, and that, in the first instance, the plaintiff sent in his bill:to to Mr. Ormerod, who alone was liable. One witness was heard for the defendant, and, at the con clusion of his testimony, the further hearing of the case was adjourned till• Monday morning, at the request of the learned Judge. The Court adjourned at half-past five o'clock. CROWN COURT.-MONDAY. His lordship took his seat at a few minutes past 9 o'clock. SENTENCE ON JOHN MARSDEN AND EDWARD CROOK. John Marsden, aged 14, and Edward Crook, aged 15, con victed of manslaughter at Bolton on Saturday last, were placed at the bar. His lordship, having animadverted in se vere terms on the practice of up and down fighting, so com mon in this county, sentenced Marsden to one month's im prisonment and Crook to two months' imprisonment in Lan caster Castle. FORGERY. John Shore, aged 41, and Thomas Wilson, aged 51, were charged with having, at Manchester, feloniously forged and uttered an acceptance upon a bill of exchange for £36 14s 6d, knowing the same to be forged. Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins defended Shore. Mr. Brandt did not press the case against Shore, and Mr. Wilkins was relieved. Thomas Logan stated that he was an innkeeper, in Man chester, and he used to deal in mouselines de lain. Some time since the prisoner at the bar, Wilson, was indebted to him, and in payment of his account he gave him a bill to the amount above specified, which purported to have been ac cepted by Shore's sister. It was sent to London at maturity and dishonoured. It appeared from the cross-examination of Logan by the prisoner, that the bill was given to Logan to discount it, but he, to use his own terms, " stuck to it, thinki ng th a t t h ree names were better than one." The jury found Wilson guilty; Shore was acquitted. Wilson was sentenced to seven years transportation. ASSAULT AND HIGHWAY ROBBpRY, James Brown, aged 25, a respectably-dressed young man, was charged with having at Manchester, on Monday even ing, the 13th December last, feloniously assaulted Benjamin Johnson, and robbed him of the sum of £230 in bank notes. Mr. Armstrong conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Whig ham the defence. BenjaMin Johnstone, the prosecutor, stated that he carried on business in Bridgewater-buildings, Manchester. On the morning of the 13th December he was at the Talbot Inn. At a quarter-past five o'clock be went to his warehouse, unlocked the safe, opened the drawer, and took out a roll of Bank of England notes. amounting to £230. He pinned the fob in which he placed the notes with a large pin. He went to the Talbot, and left it about six o'clock. When within five yards of Tipping-street he was surrounded by men, not less than three, who seized him on all sides, by the throat, mouth, and arms. He was rendered insensible almost instantly, and when he recovered there were two men taking him up. One of the men was an old acquaintance, named Foster. He found that his fob was cut off, and his safe key was lost, and all his property. Could swear that he neither paid nor re ceived any notes from the time that he got £ll5 from Messrs. Hargreaves and Dugdale. Was certain that he possessed in that roll of noees two £2O notes, which had been in his pos session more than a fortnight. One of them had been cut in two, and badly joined together. Cross-examined by Mr. WnfoltAm.—l had received the £ll5 on the 10th. Had three or four small bottoms of brandy, tilled as high as the glass would hold with water. The place where I was knocked down was a darkish place. I know nothing of the numbers or dates of the notes. 1 can not swear to the persons who attacked me. By Mr. AnmsnuoNo.—Had an impression that the pri soner was one of the.parties, but could not swear to it. Could not say whether it was reality or whether he had dreamed it afterwards, but it seemed to him that he recollected the grasp on his throat to have relaxed, he opened his eyes and saw a face—it was that of the prisoner; the grasp w as aga i n tightened, and he again became insensible. He had great difficulty in swearing to the prisoner at the police.court. He described the prisoner exactly to an individual before he was taken into custody. Frederick George Green, a boy, apparently about twelve. Knows Mr. Johnson. Saw him at the top of Tipping4treet on the morning of the 13th. Saw four men knock him down' and then run, and one stopped and got upon him. The three men who ran had their backs to me. I went up, thinking the man was gbing to kick him. There was a lamp round the corner. The mark who was upon Mr. Johnson saw me, turned round, and ran as fast as he could, leaving Mr. John son on the ground. The prisoner is the same size as one of those that ran away. Mr. Foster came up and assisted Mr. Johnson. He was very much hurt. He could not speak— he was groaning. Jame; Foster, a warehouseman, stated, that on the evening of Monday, the 13th December last, he was proceeding down Tipping-street. H eard a groaning and found a man. With another gentleman he lifted him up. The first words he ut tered were—" Oh, Foster, is that you?" Did not know him at first, as his face was bloody, dirty, and disfigured, Ac companied him home. I t was the prosecutor, Mr. Johnston. John Johnston, son of the prosecutor.—ls in the habit of collecting money for his father. Received the sum of £ll5 alluded to by his father. It consisted of £5 and £lO notes. They were rolled up and put into the safe. . Samuel Sykes, cashier 'to Messrs. Hargreaves and Dug dale, of Manchester, proved the payment of £ll5 to Mr. Johnson's son, in :C5 and £lO notes. Had received the money from John Topper. Received from Topper £135. Paid £ll5 to Johnson's son in fives and tens. Paid about three £5 notes to Johnson. Paid on Saturday, the 11th, to Grimshaw two £5 notes. On the morning after the robbery, Johnson's son came and mentioned the robbery. I was asked if I had any of the notes which I had received from Topper in my possession. I could not tell him : I thought I had - not, but I found afterwards that I had one note which corresponded with the memorandum which Topper had got from the branch bank. By Mr. WniGnAm.—l had received £135 from Topper. I paid young Johnson £ll5 ; I paid two £5 notes on Satur day, and had one remaining, which was also paid away. I must also have paid away one other £5 note to make the number. I do not make memorandums of the smaller notes, but Ido of the larger o nes . Th e momen t T opper brought in the £135 from the bank, I paid £ll5 to John ston, without mixing them with any others. John Topper, clerk in the employ of Messrs. Hargreaves arid Dugdale, proved that they went with a cheque to the Branch Bank of England. Received nine £lO notes and nine £5 notes. Delivered the money as he received it from the bank, to Mr. Sykes. Alexander Balfour, a teller at the branch Bank of Eng land, in Manchester, (produced the cheque presented by the last witness) paid nine £lO notes, nine £5 notes, and odd shillings—producing his book. The book contained the numbers of one bill in each. The first number of the fives was 5861, and of the tens 85,389. Another clerk made a memorandum of all the notes. Cross-examined.—All the notes were in a drawer together. The notes which are received the day before are put in a drawer together for re-issue. They are not consecutive. numbers, but are given out in consecutive order as they are arranged—the-fives from their heap, and the tens from their heap. Re-examined.—Mr. Todd, the clerk, who makes the entry, has them over in the order in which they have been received. Has it in his power, by examining with Todd, to discover the numbers of all the notes paid. William Winter Todd, a clerk in the Branch Bank of England, gave evidence as to the mode of entry. He then gave the numb ers o f the e i ght succee din g t en •p oun d no t es , commencir- 85,389 , and those commencing 5,861 (the five pound notes). The latter were 33,422, 19,357, 8,101, 29,737, '10,479, 84,812, 37,960, 37 , 959 . On cross-examination, this witness gave much evidence as to the course of business, displaying an admirable system. George Grimshaw, a blacksmith, proved the receipt of two notes—No. 37,960 for £5, and No. 37,959 for £s—from Mr. Sykes. He afterwards gave them up to Mr. Lomax, a police-officer, on 'Wednesday the 22d of December. These were the two notes which Mr. Sykes said he paid away, and which were not of the parcel paid to the younger Johnson. Benjamin BODthe, a surveyor, of Manchester.—On Tues day night, the 14th December, was in the neighbourhood of Clarendon-street, about a quarter past ten. I heard a cry of " Murder ! " behind me. I went to the spot, and found the prisoner at the bar with several men. He was on the ground, and the other men were kicking and abusing him. I went to his assistance, and they ran away. I told him I thought he was much hurt, and asked him if they had robbed him. He said No—he had his money in his fob. I asked him if he would know the men. He said Yes, he knew them, but would not give any i n f ormat i on a b out t h em. I said that was very odd, and he told me it was no matter to me, upon which I said I would detain him till a police-officer came. On hearing mention of a police-officer, he burst from my grasp and ran away. I pursued him, and caught him calling out " Watch ! Police-officer Rooke came up. I told him the circumstances, and he took the prisoner into custody. William Henry Rooke, a police-officer, of Manche s t er .— I was on duty in Clarendon -street, on the night of the 14th December last. I saw the last witness pursuing the prison er, and took the latter into my custody. I searched him. I found a sovereign in his hand, and £52 10s. in sovereigns and half-sovereigns in a watch-pocket which was in his trousers pocket. The fob was used as a purse, and had been cut from a pair of trousers. I also found £4 18s. 6d. in silver in his pocket. I asked him where he had got so much money, and he said he would let me know that to-morrow. Cornelius Riley, a provision dealer, of Manchester. I knew the priSoner at the bar. I always knew him by the name of Michael Miles. I have known him five or six years. On Monday evening, the 13th December, at eight o'clock, he called upon me to pay me a small balance of 175., which he had owed me since 1837. He asked me if he did not owe me an account. I said yes. I showed it to him. He said it was correct, and offered me a £5 Bank of England note. I took it to Mr. William Gibson, provision dealer, and he gave me five sovereigns for it. 1 gave the prisoner the money, and he gave me ten shillings. He said lie would not pay me there, but would go out and pay me. We went to a public-house, and he showed me a £2O note. It had been cut in two, and was not put together straight. I had it in my hand. We went into the street, 'and he there paid me ten shillings. He said he had a good deal of money on him. William Gibson, provision dealer, of Manchester, proved that, on the evening of the 13th, he changed a £5 note for the last witness. The name itiley was written on it by witness's daughter. (Note produced and identified.) It was about half-past eight o'clock. The note was read by the clerk of the court. It was num bered 10,479. Ellen Hackett, wife of Cornelius Hackett.—On the even ing of the 13th December last saw the prisoner at the Wheat Sheaf with Riley. I saw him produce two notes, which lie said were £lO notes. He produced a £2O note. I had it in my hand. He asked me to cash it. It was pieced in the middle. He wrapped it up in a small compass and put it in his mouth. He drank a glass of wine with it in his mouth. He took it out of his mouth and put it in his pocket. He showed four sovereigns. He changed one to pay for a glass of wine. He put the other three into his boot. He after wards threw them on the floor, and subsequently put them in his pocket. I have known him by the name of Michael Miles usually. Ellett Jones proved that the prisoner went to the shop at which she serves on the morning after the robbery, and pur chased a pair of boots for 145., changing a zes note. He left his old boots. The £5 note could not be traced. The old boots were given to Mr. Beswick. Mr. Beswick, superintendent of the Manchester police.— I saw the prisoner at the bar at the Manchester police-court, and applied for him to be remanded. He said he had re ceived the money from his father-in-law at Stockport. He subsequently said he did not know where the house of his father-in-law was. (A pair of shoes produced.) I received them from Ellen Jones, the last witness. There were marks Of blood upon them, and the marks are visible now. Cross-exatnined.—H e did not say his father-in-law was a hawker, and that he resided at Carlisle. Mr. WHIGHAM addressed the jury at considerable length. He did not deny that the Prosecutor was robbed, and that he suffered considerable violence, but who it was that committed that offence was still a mystery. He contended that what ever suspicions the jury might entertain, they had no evi dence on which they could convict the prisoner at the bar. The jury, after a few minutes' consideration, found the prisoner guilty. His LORDSHIP questioned Mr. Beswick as to the previous character of the prisoner. Mr. Beswick stated that he had been frequently before the court at Manchester for felony, but had not been convicted. HIS LORDSHIP sentenced the prisoner to 20 years trans portation. ' It was ordered that the money found on the prisoner should be retuned to the prosecutor. SLE.ALING A LETTER. Henry Edward Wearer, a handsome and respectable looking youth, aged 17, convicted on Saturday of having stolen a post letter, was sentenced to seven years' transpor tation. CHARGE OF BURGLARY AND RECEIVING. Abraham Harrison, ai;fi,a;ili.TaCOTiro;,"l4, were charged with having burglariously entered the house of James Unsworth, at Atherton, and stolen therefrom sixteen sove reigns, twelve half-crowns, and thirty shillings. Mary Ann Critchley, a pretty girl, aged 17, was charged with having re ceived two Sovereigns, four half-crowns, and ten shillings, knowing them to have been stolen. Mr. WILKINs conducted the prosecution. It appeared from•the evidence, that on Sunday evening the 25th January last, the prosecutor, who resides at Chowbent, went to chapel. As be was passing from his house, the pri soner Harrison was seen crouching behind a post apparently watching 'him. Mr. Unsworth locked his house up. He had concealed the key of a room in which was a drawer wherein he kept his money, under a carpet. On his return , home he found that the kitchen window had been broken I open, and access had been gained to his house, which had been rummaged. The money drawer had been opened, and £lB had been taken. There were footmarks in the snow in the yard, and the impressions were about the size of Harri son's foot. It was shown that Harrison was well acquainted with Mr. Unsworth's premises. The three prisoners were subsequently seen altogether on their way to Bolton, where they were seen making some purchases, and ultimately the two boys were seen in company, with the girl drunk. They were apprehended in Bolton, when £9 9s. 9d., with some new purchases, were found on Harrison. He said he had found the money opposite to Unsworth's house. On his way to the lock-up he said he did not care whether he were transported or not. The girl had evidently expended much money in the purchase of articles of apparel. Brown also had in his possession several new purchases, and two sove reigns in his clogs. There was no case upon the evidence adduced against either Brown or Mary Ann Critchley. The jury found Harrison guilty, and acquitted the other prisoners. There was a previous conviction against Harrison. It appeared that the prisoner had robbed Unsworth four times before, always on the sabbath, and while he (Unsworth) was at chapel. The prisoner was sentenced to ten years' transportation. ATTEMPT TO SET FIRE TO A MILL. William Hoyle, aged 14, and John Mills, 14, were charged with arson. As the evidence was not sufficient to convict of that crime, a verdict of acquittal was taken, and the prisoners were indicted for a misdemeanour, in having attempted, in February last, at Spotland, to set fire to a cotton mill, the property of Charles Haigh. Mr. Brandt conducted the prosecution ; Mr. Green de. fended the prisoners. It appeared, that on the night of the 15th of February last, at eight o'clock, Mr. Haigh's manager examined the mill, and found it all safe. Next morning, at seven o'clock, he ob served a quantity of cotton fly. or light cotton, had been on fire. The window being level with the ground, and a pane having been previously broken therein, the cotton was damp, and had been prevented from burning. There were marks of feet near the window. and from their appearance suspicion fell upon Hoyle. His clogs were taken off, and their soles were found to resemble the impressions. Hoyle was charged with the offence. He denieuLthat he had committed the of fence. He was searched, Ad some lucifer matches were found in his pockets. He then exclaimed. " Jack Mills was with me when it was done—we did it last night. We thought to turn back and put it out, but we did not." The case against Mills was withdrawn, there being no evi dence against him. The jury found the prisoner Hoyle guilty. Mills was ac quitted. Sentence on Hoyle was deferred. The case against Mills was withdrawn, there being no evi dence against him. • The Jury found the prisoner Hoyle guilty. Mill s was acquitted. Sentence on Hoyle was deferred. BIGAMY. Amelia Shaw was indicted for having married John Tay lor, her first husband, George Shaw, being still alive. The prisoner, a good-looking, well-dressed woman, pleaded who appeared as co unse l for the prosecu guilty. tio l‘ n l , r Carle l d lig a bam' witness, who gave the prisoner a good charac ter. She said her first husband never behaved as a husband. to her, but the second husband was a good man. She always behaved well to her first husband. The priscruerivas sentenced to five months imprisonment, and hard labour. The court adjourned at five o'clock to nine o'clock this morning. NISI PRIUS COURT.—MONDAY. (Before Mr. Baron ROLFE.) The learned Baron took his seat at five minutes past nine this morning. STEPHENS V. HADFIELD. This case, the principal question in which is given in our report of Saturday's proceedings, ended at one o'clock, by the jury returning a verdict for the defendant. UNDEFENDED CAUSES IN THE SECOND LIST. The learned BARON informed the bar that he should take all the undefended causes in the second list [West Derby hundred] on Friday morning, whether the first list was finished or not. COULTHARD AND ANOTHER, ASSIGNEES, V. IHORP. This was an undefended action brought by the assignees of John Coates, of Manchester, a bankrupt, .against John Thorp, treasurer of the corporation of Manchester, to re cover £1,310, the value of certain bills of exchange ' accepted and endorsed by him, when one of the officers of th e Northern and Central Bank of England. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Tomlinson were for the plaintiffs. The jury returned a verdict for the amount claimed. WHITEHEAD V. WHITEHEAD. This was an undefended action brought to recover the sum of £l9O ss. ld. The plaintiff is an attorney, and the de fendant is his brother, and both reside in Bolton. In the beginning of 1840 the defendant app:ted to the plaintiff to be come surety with him for a sum of money which was to be advanced by a Mr. Vickers. Mr. \Tickers advanced .1;160 to the defendant, upon the plaintiff entering into a bond as a security. Mr. Vickers having applied unsuccessfully to the defendant for repayment, at last brought an action against the plaintiff, who was compelled to pay the sum he now claimed from the present defendant. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. TRESPASS.—WILD AND OTHERS V. HOLT AND ANOTHER. This case was tried at the last assizes, but on application to the court above a new trial was granted, on the ground that evidence had been rejected which ought to have been admitted. The plaintiffs were the lessees, under Lord Suf field, of a colliery in the township of Thornbam, and parish of Middleton (near Rochdale) called the Hathershaw Moor Colliery. The defendants, Holt and Dunlop, are the lessees under Mr. Hornby, of an adjoining colliery called Hanging Chadder Colliery. The action was brought by the plaintiffs to recover damages for a trespass committed by the defend ants, in havtng taken from the plaintiffs' seams 748 quarters of coal, worth XI a quarter, and damage done to the amount of £s9o.—Mr. Dundas, Mr. Cowling, and Mr. Green were for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Knowles and Mr. Tomlinson for the defendants. The trial lasted several hours, but the details were entirely destitute of interest. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs, damages £750, and the learned Judge granted leave to the defendants' counsel to move the court above to enter a nonsuit, a verdict for Is., or to reduce the damages by 4s. 6d. a quarter. THE CAUSE LIST. The following was the state of the cause list at the rising of the court last night. The causes hitherto tried hare con sisted principally of undefended ones. At present the second or Salford Hundred List has not been touched. Plaintiff : Nos. 1,2, 3,5, 6,7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 24, 25, 27, 31. Defendant : Nos. 4, 9. Referred : No. 10. Withdrawn : Nos. 12, 13. CORRESPONDENCE. FREEMASONRY. TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD. SlR,—Permit me, through the medium- of your valuable paper, to call the attention of the Freemasons, and all mem bers of other illegal societies in this town, to the following passage, which I find'in the London Times of .the 28th ult., and by which it appears that Freemasonry, which is an avowed SECRET SOCIETY, falls under the same stigma and penalty consequent to Ribbonism. In the passage I allude to, Mr. Justice Barton, in his charge to the grand jury at the late Longford assizes, is made to say as follows :—" Every secret society, no matter how laudable its object might be, was illegal." And again he adds :—" Every species of secret society, no matter-what its object or denomination might be, was injurious to the peace and wellbeing of the community, and ought to be put a stop t o ." H ow can F reemasons re concile' the continuance of their societies 'with the present state of the law ?—I am, sir, your obedient servant, Liverpool, 25th March, 1842. DELTA. WEST INDIA MAILS. TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STAND4RD. •SlR,—Can you inform me whether the council are using any endeavours with government to have the station of the West India mail steamers transferred from Southampton to this place, or if they have' abandoned the affair altogether; and given it up as hopeless ? We were promised great things from the conservatives when they came into pOwer, both in the council and the cabinet ; but none of their benefits to wards the improvement of the town have yet shown them selves. Should the committee that was appointed to apply to government, for the purpose of having this town made the home station of these steamers, have ceased to use their exertions, I would suggest that there be a requisition sent to the mayor, to call a public meeting, in order to petition par liament to have the station changed, showing that there would be a saving of thousands by the removal. The share holders of the Great Western steamer calculate on a saving of £2OO by their vessel sailing alternately from Liverpool and Bristol. What would it be if the fourteen West India mail steamers were to sail from this port instead of South ampton, where the charges are as high as, if not higher than, at Bristol? The inhabitants of Cork have, I obserqe, peti tioned parliament to have their city made the port for the arrival and departure of these vessels. Surely the people of Liverpool ought to be equally as anxious, and will, I hope,, bestir themselves, and shake off the apathy with which they have treated this matter. Do not think that I have any any pecuniary benefit in view in making these remarks, as their being brought here or continued elsewhere will not affect me in the slightest degree, my only object being the prosperity of my native town. I cannot conclude - the above without offering my humble . tribute of praise to your paper, for the clear and indefatiga ble manner in which you have put forth the claims of this port, notwithstanding the sneers of your local contempora ries, who are jealous of your exertions in outdoing theirs, in your deiire to forward the interests and pro Mote the pros. perity of the " good . old town."—Yours DIC very KEY S respect AMully, Liverpool, March atth, 18-12. [We cannot really state, in reply to our correspondent " Dickey Sam," what steps, or whether any steps, are taking by the council, with respect to the West India mail station being removed to this port. We strongly suspect, however, that the question is neglected by the Finance Committee, in whose hands it was placed by the council, and not in those of a committee expressly appointed, for the purpose of pressing it upon government. We believe firmly that to this port the West India mails must ulti mately, and at no distant period, be transferred.. To ac celerate, however, so desirable a consummation, exertion will be necessary ; and we can see no more judicious course, and none more likely to be effectual, than that proposed by our correspondent. We shall see whether his suggestion will be listened to by the parties to whom it is addressed ; and if it is not, we shall return to the subject.—En. L. S.] THE THEATRES. TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD. n,—Few men who pay any attention to passing events in our good town can fail to be aware of a little feud which is now distracting our dramatic circles. I allude to the con test raging between the contending proprietors of the Thea tre-Royal and those of the Liver, who by the way have as sumed a title for that establishment to which they have nei ther a moral nor an equitable right. This war is about to engage the attention of a court of law ; the gauntlet has been thrown down ; it must be taken up ; and I trust that the question, when once decided by a legally constituted tribu nal, will be set at rest ; and what is more, that it will give satisfaction to the public. Now, Sir, what is the mode of dealing with the question at issue? The mode of dealing with it is pointed out by the law of the land, and until all its phases have been tested by that, it appears to me that all attempts to prejudge it are not only silly, but opposed to the justice of the case. The object of parties who put themselves forward, either openly or anonymously, can only be partizanship; and when the case on each side cannot be fully investigated, partizanship is obviously improper. Above all, in a dry question of law, partizanship is absurd, for let a man's opinion be ever so sound, what does it amount to? What authority has it? And lastly, in a matter of this kind, what possible effect can it have? Except as to the assumption of a title for his theatre, to which Mr. Raymond cannot have the shadow of a claim, I am not animated by the motive which I have just condemned. Indeed that cannot be called partizanship which opposes and exposes a denomination which unquestionably has been taken, if not as an accessary to deception, at least to confer a surreptitious ECLAT. I inn urging the propriety of strict impartiality On the part of the public ; and considering that but a very small portion of the public is likely to feel inter ested in the question, there can be no sound reason for ex pecting any other exhibition from them. But while the necessity and the decency of impartiality is so obvious, and while a thousand reasons of public policy conspire to render such a course absolutely indispensable in them, two of your brother journalists, Sir, have not scrupled to turn their columns to the open advocacy of the cause of their respective principles. By a strange inconsistency the Journal has been supporting what the Mail calls monopoly, while the Mail has been fighting with harder words but less vigour for opening the trade of theatrical representation ! One would have thought that if monopoly was bad in the root, the branches of it must partake of the same character; and, on the other hand, simple-minded people would, in or dinary cases, suppose that if the protective principle is sound at the foundation, the superstructure of all its parts must be sound also. But it is hard to divine the policy of these " absolute" champions ; and as they seem not to be desti tute of that philosophic composure which enables men to laugh at their own inconsistencies, I must remain content till either their ingenuity or their candour prompt them to the explanations of the apparent anomaly. But I do think, Sir, that the supporters of those journals— the people who pay their subscriptions on the faith that their respective principles shall be maintained without time-serv ing or vaccination, have a claim upon their conductors for the reasons which have dictated this extraordinary conduct. It is true that the cogent reasoning of the Journat is but feebly opposed by the vapour of the Mail; it is true that the one has the known law of the land, which is plain enough, to support his views, whilst the other is scrambling in an un known sea, confused by the extent of his own knowledge, or rather ignorance, of the subject ; it is true that one vindi cates patent rights with power, whilst the other opposes them with froth and personality—the " damning spot" remains on each. Gentlemen, you are both inconsistent ; on this ques tion you have changed stools • the oracle of Athens has bee n transferred to Rhodes, whilst he of Rhodes is gone to Athens, and neither the Athenians nor the Rhodians are to be the wiser. Softly, good Sirs ; steal not out of the city with your sandals dry. You are detected. I remain, Sir, Your obedient humble servant, TU QUOQUE. Great George-street, March 25, 1842. " THE DEAD ALIVE." TO THE EDITOR OF TILE LIVERPOOL STANDARD. Sift,—Under the above title, in your paper, "a paragraph appeared, wherein it was stated that " on Tuesday last a gentleman appeared at the police court to complain of another party for having sent a hearse and mourning coach to his re sidence to convey him to Woolton church - yar d for inter ment.", You have farther reported that " the complainant s case created much merriment in •eourt," ac., a nd that ' . the case was dismissed." I beg to contradict this .statement, being the individual who has been annoy ed by a gang of mis creants. Some days ago a message was sent to my house, (purporting to be from a dear friend of mine) that I had cut my throat hi the office. My wife, who is at best but a very delicate lady, received the intelligence in such a way, that our medical attendant, and a friend who came to her assist ance, declared her life in danger from such a fiendish message. I happened to be (row home, consequently the villains, who \ watched' the success of their Liaborical stratagem, got time to escape without identity. Not so, however; the next exhi bition of their Satanic spleen. A hearse and mourning coach, it is true, was sent to my house, and in less than two hours the party who ordered it was discovered and identified by the parties who received the order for the funeral; and on the same day a note was handed to the Mail office, an nouncing my death by suicide! If you deem this a matter of " merriment," I do not. — There was, moreover, no such case before the court, but eer tainly I called at the office to complain ; and it is but justice • to say that Mr. Rushton and Mr. Dowling did not, by their gentlemanly and condesc42nding CoOllOCt to us, exhibit any . levity, or the clerks by whom they were surrounded. On the contrary, they expressed their regret that they could not • protect its from such abominable attacks, and Mr. Rushton recommended an indictment fin• conspiracy, which 1 have now ordered to be prepared. The youngest of the party was identified by one of the clerks in the police office, as the per son who called to enquire if the police could punish any Irian • for ordering a coach. and hearse, describing the manner in which it was done. To-day placards have been attached to the walls, involving a libel now being brought against these miscreants. The insertion of the above facts, in contradiction to the - paragraph, which, I believe, has been very unconsciously in troduced by you into the columns of your paper, and circu lated by your supposed correspondent, will oblige, Sir. yours, &c., CHAS. MACIOE. '! No. 6, Lord-street, 28th March. THE THEATRE•ROYAL AND THE ROYAL LIVER. TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD. ' Stn,—l have to thank you for your courtesy in making room for my last communication, although I fear I may b Considered intruding upon your • columns, at a time when they are likely to be occupied with weighty matters con nected with the law. I hope, having justice in view, you will pardon me addressing you so soon again. I am induced to write to you on the present occasion, in consequence of having seen in a contemporary, the acknow ledged organ and supporter of the " Royal Liver Theats e," an article, in which several points require commenting upon, because. it they 'are allowed to pass without some remarks, many of the readers of' that newspaper, not acquainted with • facts, might be lead to believe the soundness of the assertions set forthmany of which most appositely, to qUote from that article, " are not true, and are based on a rotten collti dation." My only object in this letter is to warn the public from being mislead in the matter, and to endeavour to prevent those interested in the question judging until both sides be heard. The article in question states :—" The new lessees of the Theaticßoyalsslissmarding the fate of their predecessors, and the publid warnings which they have bud against falling into an error which could only bring upon them an innnense amount of obroquy, without producing any equivalent or compensating advantage, have caused intoemations to be laid, and summonses to issue, against Mr. Raymond, the re spected manager of the Royal Liver, Mademoiselle Celeste,- Mr. Webster, and Mr. Strickland, to show cause why they should not be mulcted of a penalty of £5O each, for perform- ing the regular, or licensed, drama in an unlicensed theatre." Times are changed since the outcry was raised against Mr. Clarke, The public then did not rightly understand the matter: it was led away by a false sympathy.- People -; thought the lessee was exerting an arbitrary and unwarranted 'measure of coercion in endeavouring to shut up his spirited opponent—that he had neither law nor justice on his side in " 41 so doing. But the questiOn has been so much discussed, s:1 that even uninterested personsl begin to have a glimmering • of the truth;• while those who are really so, thoroughly un derstand the bearings of the base. • As perchance some of your readers do not clearly compre hend how the Matter stands, I will concisely place it before them, and illustrate it in a honiely:way: To open a theatre for hire, gain, or reward,—(and sharim upon the authorities of this town that so many penny dens of infamy shoUld be allowed to spring up)—without a patent, is in dii•ect opposition to the law. The patent is the shield 'of protection against informers. To sell tea, coffee, tobacco, • wine, or. spirits, without a license, is also against the law. The manager procures a patent to permit him to entertain the public with mental aliment : the tradesman procures a license to enable him to keep a stock to afford his customers bodily aliment. The tradesman's license does not prevent his next-door neighbour opening a shop, and selling without • one : his license has no reference to his neighbour -s•-it is only relative to himself ; but he will perhaps complain when be finds himself undersold ; he may or may not give the excise a hint. Let that be so or not, the-law will soon pounce upon the unlicensed seller, who, to his - cost, will be compelled to shut up shop. The manager or lessee pays in his rent for his license—in other words, his. patent—obtained ~by. his landlord perhaps years ago, at great cost. That patent, like the license of the tradesman, affects only himself.' It is his permission to • keep open his doors for the public'to enter, and honour him - with its custom. This is precisely the case between the Theatre-Royal lessee and the lessees of the Royal' Liver Theatre and the other establishments. The patent of the former has no reference whatever to any other establishment —it is only its own protection. But, it may be asked, since the law comes down so- soon upon the unlicensed trader, why does it not exert its power over the unpatented manager, who, bidding it defiance, night after night interferes with the duly licensed theatre, and takes' away its custom ? Why it does not, has always appeared to me an anomaly. it is greatly to be regretted that it does pot, because it would be the means of an agitation which would eventually bring about an alteration in the law of theatrical patents ; and when I say this I say with truth, that if any man deserves protection from the law, it is Mr. Raymond. No greater proof of this could be adduced than the fact, that 11,000 of his townsmen wished to see him so protected. But the law is the law, and we must take it, good or bad, as it stands. If good, the law should he carried out to its fullest extent; if bad, every effort should be made to get it altered. Such being the position between the parties, how can your contemporary affirm that " Messrs. Anderson and Hammond have neither law nor justice on their side," or that they are acting " unwisely and inconsistently" ? Is it " unwise "to protect their own interests, or " inconsistent ". to take steps which the law clearly does not think it worth while to take for them ? But lam trespassing at too great length. You shall hear again from me in reply to the remainder of the article of • your contemporary.--Yours, THESPIAN. Liverpool, March 25." THE FUNDS, SATURDAY EVENING.—The English stocks were scarcely dealt in, and prices were unaltered. Consols for money continue 891 to ' and for the accoun t 894 ; Ex chequer-bills are 275. to 295. premium ; and India Bonds, 10s. premium. Mexican stock was rather better, being quoted at 42 to ; but other foreign securities were nearly as they closed on Thursday. Spanish Actives left off at 241 to ; Portuguese Five per Cents; 34 to ; Ditto Three per Cents., 20 to 1 ; Dutch 21 per Cents., :52 to ; Ditto Five per Cents., 103 to 2 ; Colombian, 2GI to ;1; Brazilian, 70 to 71; and Belgian, 103 to 104. Sir George Arthur is to be the Governor of Bombay, in succession to the late Sir William H. M`Naghten. " Hoping to see you soon again," as the man said when he took an emetic. At the Exeter assizes, on Saturday last, a magistrate was sent to the common jail of the county, for a month, in con sequence of having administered some oaths in a matter in which he had no jurisdiction. The foundation-stone of a monument to the memory of the late Henry Hunt was laid, on Friday, in the burial ground attached to the Rev. J. Scholefield's Chapel, Every street, Manchester. THE RINGUER ALLEGED MURDER.—At the Norfolk assizes, on Wednesday, John Pochney, Charles Briggs, and Stephen Stedman, were indicted for assaulting Hannah Smith, otherwise 'Devonshire, since decea se d, an d s t ea li ng from her; various articles. Briggs was acquitted, and Pochnev was sentenced to 2 years, and Stedman to IS months, hard labour. Letters received in London on Thursday announce that the eminent firms in that city of Acramans, Morgan, and Co., and of D. E. and A. Acraman, have determined on calling their creditors together. An excessive outlay of ca pital, beyond the means of the parties, more particularly iu machinery and ship-building, is said to have been the imme diate cause of the stoppage. At their own request, an exa mination into the state of their affairs has been going on for some days. past, which is said to report very favourably of the final issue. THE . DUTIES ON TALLOW.—On reference to the schedules of customs duties to be reformed, as printed for parliament, and which therefore should be correct, it would appear that no further fiscal change is proposed than•to lower the rate u t duty on " talloW from any British possession in Asia, Africa or America," from Is. per cwt., as now ruling, to 3d. per cwt. for the future. On Russian or other foreign tallowi the duty remains 3s. 2d. per cwt., as now fixed. A commissioner from the court of Hanover arrived in London last week, with full powers to negotiate the settle ment of the State duties ; since his arrival one meeting to ar range the mode of proceeding with the gentlemen appointed to act on behalf of the British Government has been holden. Let us trust then at last this long-pending subject of dispute will be so arranged as to promote the interests of British commere on the Elbe. INTREPIDITY or A FEMALE.—On Monday evening last, between 8 and 9 o'clock, Mrs. Judith Hester, residing go to 9, Union-court, Holborn, London, having g the coal-cellar for some coals, was rather startled on arriving there by perceiving a dirty, ragged, but powerful and gigantic fellow, crouched up in one corner. With great presence of mind Mrs. Hester, who, by the way, is somewhat of a Pata gonian herself, sprang upon the man, seized him by the throat, dragged him from his lurking-place, and marched him up stairs. The ruffian made several desperate attempts to extricate himself, but Mrs. Hester, with great firmness and courage, kept a tight hold of him until her screams fur as sistance brought several of the inmates and neighbours to her aid. A meeting was lately held in London of parties connected with Australia, New Zealand, &c„ to consider what improved means are now offered of shortenite'v, the time at present oc cupied in voyages to that p ar t of tlic world. It was stated, that Australia was about 16,000 miles distant from this coun try, and that it required 100 to 120 days for fast-sailing yes . sels to accomplish the voyage ; but if steam-vessels, vial tI. , Cape, were employed, it would occupy about 66 daYV, ` l _ the Red Sea and Bombay, a much shorter passage could l a ci vail ' effected ; and the mode of transit proposed was,. to ent o f themselves of the advantages offered by the establis.noosig lies the Royal West India Steam-packet . Company' " 41 mon th, sels call at Chagres and Porto Bello twice ever) completing a dis completing the voyage from this country to tha t p ort, stated. tance of 4,600 miles, in 25 days. From Chagrretsbe goods and passengers could be passed so o b v s e m Panama, and thence to Cruces, and i . ca tion, a distance of Nicholson by means of steam c ommu er n fui s _ ps. bi could, it is 6,280 miles, which passage, by about 26 days, and from Po . it ueright'onuls'o°rtt. estimated, be performed in abo entire completion ot . t 1 , five days, which would insure thus saving half the time days, !on route, while it would Nicholson to Sydney, a further distance of 1,285 miles, in Nicholson R o the Cape of Good acquired to perform i required %la I passage in little more .t tl b ut y n be several days less than d to bring it before the public: to be adopte stated to be well supported, in a more tangible shape. On "Wednesday mornin ,, last, the a H n o d p m e. eas l u ' the s COM . ..n bury Moor was attacked a gang to have been lurking about this sup of depredators. DARING ] some time past. From foot-marks left in • hbourhood for that the thieves bad first examined neig rieeistroaoirulenteEnp:o...posed was parsonage.house at po sed the garden, it a ppears window round the house, and, not succeeding d''ntrance, they climbed over one of the out de their way into the court-yard. They then houses, and made of the stable, saddle and the doors , :room, coach-house, in every forging door cing 171 c forced and dua lly the school-room , which is o ver t h ese b uildings. Here they burst open a number of desks and boxes, and found 1:3 10s. iu silver, belonging to the young gentlemen. They also carried off a few hats and caps, and some shoes and other articles, leaving the school-room and yard strewed with i i books and papers. It is presumed they would have con veyed away a much larger booty, but that a person was coming to the parsonage about half-past three in the morn ing, to call up the maid servants to the ironing. lie met three men in the gateway, th e fi rst carry i ng a sac k, a b ou t half full, and the o th ers armed with heavy sticks. A pistol hall, some large shot, and a sprinkling of gunpowder, were found on a wall at the back of the premises, and a picklock was broken an d l e f t in the lock of one of the boxes. Another, robbery occurred at Dewsbury Moor, about ten o'clock on. the same m orn i ng, when about £3 was taken from the per son of Thom as B arratt ; it is presumed by Leeds bitelli geneer. the late gang.—