The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1844-09-03 00:00:00

LIVERPOOL SUMMER ASSIZES. CROWN COURT.—TUESDAY. His LORDSHIP took his seat at nine o'clock. SENTENCES. James Price, who pleaded guilty of the manslaughter vf Elizabeth Fairhurst, whose death was occasioned by the furious driving of a Vehicle, was sentenced to one month's imprisonment. His Lordship considered the prisoner's companion the more blomeable party. Thomas Evans, convicted of uttering a forged order for the payment of .iC-1 1 . 05. ' was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and hard labour. The prisoner had been previously convicted. _ _ _ _ Ti'rn. kCartney, convicted of uttering a forged order, was sentenced :o two years' imprisonment and Lard la bour. Charles Diamond, convicted of stabbing Hiram Ste phens with intent to maim him, but recommended to mercy, was sentenced to transportation for fifteen years. His Lora:ism! , promised to send the recommendation of the jury to the proper quarter. Josepli Farrell, convicted of the manslaughter of his wife, was sentenced to eighteen months imprisonment and hard labour. " • Joseph Walton, found guilty of an assault : three months' imprisonment. Thomas Butterworth, convicted of larceny : six months' imprisonment and bard labour. Martha Hatton, convicted of burglary, six months' imprisonment and bard labour. Samuel Smith, who pleaded guilty of burglary, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and bard labour. George Rushton, convicted of bigamy, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and hard labour. Patrick At Crea, found guilty of an assault, was sen tenced to six months' impisonment. Elizabeth Stevenson, convicted of the concealment of the birth of her child, one month's imprisonment. James Drake for bigamy—six months' imprisonment and hard labour. Thomas Charnock for bigamy—six months' imprison. went and hard labour. CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER. Thomas Nuflat was indicted for the manslaughter of a boy named William Wilkinson, at Bolton, on the 15th of May last. Mr. Hu I.TON stated the case. The deceased was what is termed a piecer to the prisoner, a spinn?r, and both were in the employ of Messrs. Crook, spinners at Bolton. On the day in question the deceased, in consequence of neglecting his work, received a slight chastisement from the prisoner, such as is usual, but in consequence of a push from the prisoner, came in contact with the machinery, and was struck by a part of it, which caused his death in a few hours. It was proved, though there was a slight discrepancy in the evidence, that the prisoner used every means to prevent the accident occurring. His LORDSHIP went over the evidence, and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty, end the prisoner was discharged. CHAP.GE OF DEFRAUDING A LOAN SOCIETY. Jane Harvey, 32, Georg e rlia :18,nd,Steph;tz Par kinson, 21, sere charged with an attempt to defraud the Trustees of a Loan Society, at Liverpool. The case for the prosecution was stated by Mr. Paget. On the Bth of July last, the female erisoner Jane Harvey, went to the office of the North British Loan Society, and applied for one of the usual forms preparatory to obtain ing a loan. She was afterwards called on and told to bring her sureties on the Friday following, and she came accordingly, bringing with her the prisoner Banks and a person named Woods. On being asked for the other surety (the rules of the society requiring three) she said be was engaged on the river and could not come till the next day. Banks on being asked his name said it was George Harvey, and made his mark accordingly. Woods also signed it. The parties were then told the money would be paid on the signing of the note by the other surety. On the next day Harvey called in company with the prisoner Parkinson, and being asked his name, said it was Murphy, and signed his name accordingly. The money was not paid over. Some suspicion then arose, in consequence of information that had been received, that Parkinson and Banks were not the parties they repre sented themselves to be, and the three prisoners were eventually given into custody. The jury after a few minutes' consultation found all the prisoners guilty, and they were sentenced to two years' imprisonment. hIALICIOOSLY CUTTING AND WOUNDING. Timothy O'Brien, 40, (could read and write imper fectly,) was charged with cutting and stabbing John Richards and William Jones. at Liverpool, in July last. Mr. Cardwell conducted the prosecution, and the pri soner was defended by Mr. Wilkins. Mr. CARDWELL briefly stated the facts of the case. On the 11th of July last, between three and foal - o'clock in the afternoon, the officer of the borough court of this town, John Shanahan, went, will three assistants, Richards, Jones, and Smith, to execute a writ of posses sion, and to give the parties, who had established their right, possession of the premises occupied by the priso ner, who kept a provision shop in Charter-street. On entering the shop, and being about to produce the war rant, they were attacked with an iron bar by a person who acted as assistant to the prisoner, but who was not then taken. At the commencement of the attack, the prisoner called out for a knife, upon obtaining which, he made a rush and tried to stab Richards, and, on Jones going to his assistance, he also was struck and received several wounds from the knife which he had in his hand. The police then interfered, and the prisoner was taken into custody. After the case had proceeded, and one or two witnesses had been called, Mr. Wilkins declined making any de fence on the part of the prisoner, provided the first count in the indictment, namely, the charge of murder, were abandoned. The prisoner would plead guilty to the other counts. The jury then returned a verdict of guilty on the counts charging him with cutting and maiming, but acquitted him of the intent to murder. The prisoner was, after a most solemn and impressive admonition from his Lordship, on the nature of his crime and its dreadful consequences, sentenced to fifteen years' transportation._ Henry Hamilton, Peter Took, and James Kean, were discharged by proclamation. This was the whole of the crown business. THE QUEEN V. LOWE. This was an action on the part of Mr. K. Tyrer, of this town, against Mr. John Lowe, for an alleged libel, said VI have been contained in certain placards published by the defendant, Lowe. Mr. Watson and Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wilkins for the defendant. Mr. WATSON went briefly over the fat's of the case, from which it appeared that the defendant had some inte rest in property in this town, in the year 1843, on which the plaintiff had -advanced money = that various letters bad.passed between them relative to it—and that after wards the defendant had a number of placards printed, and posted on the walls of the town.. The placard was headed " to capitalists." and contained several of the let ters that had 'passed between the parties, relative to the abovenamed property; reference was also made to some party who was charged with " fraud, forger✓, falsehood, ere., which was printed in large characters to attract the attention of parties reading, which it was alleged was in tended to apply to the plaintiff. The only object sought by the plaintiff was (observed the learned Counsel) to remove any impression that might have been made preju dicial to his character, and to prevent further annoyance from the same party. The defendant pleaded that the placard did not refer to the plaintiff. Some conversation then took place between the coun sel with the view of effecting an arrangement, Mr. Watson requiring, on the part of the plaintiff, an admission that the language referred to was not intended to libel Mr. Tyrer, and an assurance that he would not publish any placard, or annoy him in such a way for the future, either by writing letters or in any other manner. Mr. "WILKINS said, the defendant could not plead guilty to the charge, but he would make the assurance that had been asked by his learned friend. Under these circumstances the assurance was entered into, and a verdict of acquittal taken. This was the last case for trial in the Crown Court, and the learned Chief Baron left for London on Wednesday morning. NISI PRIUS COURT.-TUESDAT. CRIM. CON.-WOOD V. MONK. At the sitting of the Court this morning the hearing of this case was resumed. Four additional witnesses were called on the part of the defendant ; and they proved generally that the plaintiff bad frequently assaulted his wife. broken her teeth, and blackened her eyes, and that he had upon one occasion said he should put a halter round her neck, and sell her at the " Obelisk," in Preston. Evidence was also given to show that the plaintiff had made an attempt upon his sister-in-law's chastity on two occasions, and that she was obliged to get married to escape from under his roof. When the examination of the fourth witness had been concluded, Mr. KNOWLES, on the part of the plaintiff, intimated his desire to withdraw a juror, as he said no good could arise from any further discussion of such a case. The JUDGE, who was of the same opinion, consented; a juror was accordingly withdrawn, and the case was thus brought to an abrupt termination, at ten o'clock. WILLIAMSON V. PAGE. In this case the plaintiff was William Williamson, and the defendant William Page. The declaration set forth that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of £46 for work and labour done, and money lent. The defendant pleaded that, except as to £l5, he had never_ promised to pay. appeared for Mr. Sergeant Murphy, and Mr. Robinson d for th e pl a i n t i ff ; an d M r . W atson and Mr. 'Webster r: for the defendant. It appeared that the plaintiff was a ship-owner at Bel fast, and the defenda r n r t a gentleman who lives at Scarbo „n -rough, and the ofa vessel called the Adventure ; brought and the action w as . to recover a sum of £46, money advanced by the plaintiff to Captain Allin, the master of that vessel, the u month4bof November last. The ship had been on a to place fo r a Arirralr, and brought home a cargo from that Sims, n of Belf a st. of October, She arrived at Belfast towards the latter e d r and then the captain endeavoured to procure for the ship. The p laintiff succeeded i n vre a. erl charter charter for her, to con ve y a cargo of timb er to Cardiff, a to be used in the mines there. When the timber was on board, and the vessel ready for sea, the captain obtained £46 from the plaintiff to pay the necessary expenses at the Belfast Ballast-office, and the cost of provisions' for the voyage. The captain then drew a bill for the amount, 'which was transmitted to the defendant for acceptance; and, after some delay, the defendant wrote back to the plaintiff to cay that the captain had no authority to draw bills, and that he. had no occasion to raise money, as he had the amount of his freight in his hands; and from that time to the present no settlement was made. The defence was similar to that stated in the letter written to the plaintiff—namely, that the captain had no authority to draw bills, and had no occasion to borrow money at Belfast. A. verdict was returned for the plaintiff for £25. DICKSON V. WYNNE. In this case the coach-proprietor and inn keeper in Yorkshire, sought to recover a sum of £46 from the defendant, who was another coach-proprietor and inn keeper, at Ashton-under-Lyne, being the amount of cer tain disputed accounts between the parties for running a coa h called the Tantivy, between Manchester and Shef field. After the case had been opened by Mr. Baines, a verdict was taken for the plaintiff, by consent, subject to a reference. WILLOCK V. GREEN. In this case the plaintiff was Richard Willock, and the defendant William Green the younger. The declaration was for an assault, to which the defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. Roebuck and Mr. Cardwell appeared for the plain tiff, and Mr. Martin for the defendant. It appeared that the plaintiff was an old man in humble circumstances, a drover of cattle, residing at Skipton, in Yorkshire, and in the employment of Mr. Slingshy, of Moston-hall, in this county. Mr. Slingsby and the de fendant were cattle-breeders, and in the habit of exhibit ing cattle at agricultural exhibitions. In the month of October last there was a cattle show at Tuttington, at which the defendant happened to be the victor, and after the show was over he repaired to an inn at Fishpool, where the plaintiff was stopping at the time. The plain tiff had been the whole day in the company of a man named Windle, and was perfectly sober, and in a most unlikely state to cause offence. Some conversation then took place between the plaintiff and the defendant's fa ther, which ended in a blow being inflicted by the former; but after an apology had been given, and matters satis factorily arranged, the defendant, who was a young man, rushed into the room, seized a candlestick which was standing on the table, and threw it at the plaintiff, thereby inflicting a severe wound upon his mouth, knocking out two or three .of his teeth, and preventing him, by reason of the haemorrhage, from going to sleep. The next morning the defendant appeared to feel that he had in flicted an unmerited injury, and accordingly he said he was exceedingly sorry for what he had done, and that be was willing to pay for the damage. This offer, however, had never been fulfilled ; and the jury had to consider what was a fair and reasonable amount of damages for such an assault, inflicted as that had been by a young and wealthy man upon an old person in indigent circum stances. Mr. MARTIN, for the defence, contended that mild and temperate conduct was not to be expected from cattle drivers, they being generally rough, coarse fellows, who were willing to give and receive injuries in a blunt man ner. The JUDGE said that the learned counsel's argument reminded him of the well-known line—" He that drives fat oxen should himself be fat ; " and he thought in the present case tie line might be rendered—" He that drives tame oxen should himself be tame." (Laughter.) A verdict was returned for the plaintiff—damages .£lO. BRETHERTON V. COLQUHOUN. In this case the plaintiff was Joseph Bretherton, and the defendant James Colqulioun. The declaration was for work and labour done, money lent, and on an account stated. The defendant pleaded that he was never in debted, and a set-off. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Hoggins appeared for the plain tiff, and Mr. Crompton for the defendant. It appeared that the plaintiff is a veterinary surgeon in Liverpool, and keeps a very extensive repository for the sale of horses on commission : and the defendant is an Irish horse-dealer, who was in the habit of coming to Liverpool and placing his horses with the plaintiff for sale. The mode of ing business at the establishment appeared to be this : the person bringing a number of horses, left them with the plaintiff for sale when conve nience might arise, and the plaintiff paid the party money on account of the lot ; and when the horses were sold, the money lent and the expense of the stabling were de ducted from the receipts, and the balance settled. In October, 1843, the defendant was in Liverpool ; the books were then produced, every item was gone over, and it turned cut that there was a sum of £5O then owing by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff paid him that balance, and advanced him a further sum ; since then a few transactions had taken place between them, and at present there was a sum of X1:0 due. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff, by consent, subject to a reference. HOWARD V. WAREING. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Thomas Howard, against the def , ndant, Edward 'Wareing. The declaration was for money had and received. The de fendant paid £2O into court, denied his liability beyond that amount, and pleaded that lie was a stake-holder in a race. Mr. MARTIN, (with whom was Mr. Atherton,) stated that the plaintiff and defendant were formerly friends, and that the action was brought to recover the amount of certain bets made on a race. The real object of defend ing the action was to establish that the race had been unfairly won, but the defendant having now been satisfied on this point, the jury would not be troubled with an in-' vestigation of the facts. Mr. KNowLEs, for the defendant, said his learned friend had truly stated that the plaintiff and his client were formerly friends, and that in the running of the race his client was the loser of a bet to the plaintiff. From certain circumstances which occurred at the time the defendant thought that unfairness had been practised, and imputed that unfairness to the plaintiff. He was now, however, convinced that if there was any unfairness the plaintiff had nothing whatever to do with it. The JUDGE : One has heard of such imputations hal ing been cast in other cases. A juror having been withdrawn, the case was not gone into, much to the disappointment of many persons who had purposely assembled to hear a detailed account of the " tricks of the turf." SAME V. SIXSMITH. This was an action precisely similar to the last, and it was settled in the same manner. DOE DEM. WRIGHT V. CUMMING AND ANOTHER. This was an action of ejectment brought by George Wright to recover from William Cumming and Henry Robinson possession of the Beehive Tavern, in Fazaker ley-street. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. Atherton and Mr. Monk appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Watson and Mr. Crompton for the defendants. It appeared that the plaintiff was Mr. George Wright, formerly Councillor for St. Paul's Ward, and a brewer in Union-street. A gentleman of the name of Carver let the Beehive to Robinson, and, by his permission, Cum ming, the other defendant, came into possession of the premises. Carver made a will, and devised the property to three 'or. four .gentlemen, all. of whom renounced it, with the exception of a Mr. Whitley, who sold it to Mr. Wright. A verdict was returned for• the plaintiff. TAYLOR . V. DODGES. In this case, James Taylor was the plaintiff, and George Washington acidge . e The 'defendant. Mr. Baines and Mr. Hall appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Martin and Mr. Hoggins for the defendant. The plaintiff was a blanket manufacturer at Batley, in Yorkshire : the de fendant was a commission agent in Man Chester ; and the action was brought against the defendant in order to obtain from him compensation in damages for a breach of duty imputed to him in the declaration. The plaintiff had consigned to the defendant a certain number of blankets to be sold by commission in America. lie gave instructions that they were not be sold below the invoice price, but alleged that the plaintiff had sold them at a great sacrifice. The case opened with several ,intricate points, and after some conversat'on among the counsel on both sides, it was agreed to rt fer matters in dispute to a gentleman of the bar. DAVIES V. DIMMER AND °TITERS, This was — an action brought by .the plaintiff, Mary Davies. against the defendants, John Rimmer, Peter Radcliffe, and Henry Seddon. The declaration con tained three counts for breaking and entering her premi ses, putting her out of possession, converting her goods. and assaulting and beating her. The defendants pleaded eight counts,—first, that they were not guilty, and secondly that the house was not the plaintiff's premises, &c. Mr. Baines and Mr. Atherton.appeared for the plain= tiff, and Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cardwell for the defend ants. Mr. BAINES stated the case. He said the plaintiff was the widow of a man named William Davies, who lived at Lytham, in this county ; and the action was brought to recover compensation in damages for several trespasses, committed under circumstances calculated to excite very strong feelings. Her husband and family had resided for nearly a century on part of Lord Skelmersdale's estate. The husband died there at the close of last year, and the plaintiff continued to reside on the premises from that time until the month of May last, when the first trespass took place. The defendants, 'acting upon some claim which it would be necessary for them to establish if they could, went to the house on the first of May, and con. ducted themselves - in a manner which would be described by the witnesses. They were heard to use such violent and threatening language, as they approached, that the plaintiff ordered the door to be fastened : and their con duct towards the poor widow, with a daughter, a son 13 years of age, and a grandchild about 4, was as follows : —The defendant, Rimmer, got a spade, and swore he would break open the door, and, accordingly, the door was actually broken open, and a forcible entry effected. As he was entering, his expression was, " d—n her, when I get in, I'll knock her brains out." When he' entered, he ordered the plaintiff to go out. She refused to comply with the request. He was then in the act of striking at.her, but his blow did not take effect, and then struck the daughter of the plaintiff in such a manner as to swell her face immediately. In short, he conducted himself in the most violent manner, and used outrageous language. The plaintiff was in the greatest possible state of agitation ; she was suffering from illness at the time: she became exceedingly unwell during their stay; they turned out herself, her daughter, her Son, and her grand child ; took out all the things in the house, and left her on the road in this melancholy condition. Rimmer saying that she might have the goods, if she had any place to put them in. But she had no place,—no house to go to ; it was only through the charity of a neighbour, that she was provided with accommodation for five nights in a barn ; and upon the Gth of May her things were taken from her, by the orders of Rimmer, and sold. He (Mr. Baines) believed - that his learned friend on the other side would set up some will. which, it would be said, was made i by the husba n d o f th e p l a i n tiff, an d w hich entitled Rimme r to b a y e t thein t evidence, e b ar ut be i f t o w re ould be the R shown death of the plaintiff's husband, a, had had a paralytic stroke—that he h a d two othersin he thee course of the same year—that he was sp eec hl ess for a month before his death, and that he was, therefore, not in a fit state to make a will. Witnesses were then examined to prove the case, and, after it had bee❑ partly heard, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, with £5 damages, as against Rimmer, and for the two other defendants on all the counts. DOE DEM. STOREY a. SUMMERS. This was an action of ejectment brought by Joseph Storey to recover possession of a piece of land at Edge hill. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff. Tile court adjourned at half-past six o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.—WEDNESDAY. NON-PAYMENT OF ELECTIONEERING EXPENSES. DUCKWORTII V. JOHNSON.—In this case Wm. Duck worth was the plaintiff and George Johnson the defend ant. The action was fnr goods sold and materials and attendance, and on an account stated. The amount sought was £5O. The defendant admitted his liability to the extent of £6. The plaintid'Scase was conducted by Mr. Wortley, as sisted by Mr. Cardwell ; Messrs. Baines and Segar were for the defendant. Mr. WORTLEY stated that the plaintiff was a publican, carrying on business at Blackburn, and the defendant a respectable tradesman, also belonging to that place. In the year 1841, during the occurrence of the general election, considerable excitement prevailed, and the town of Blackburn was no exception, the struggle there being carried on with great spirit on both side's. Mr. Turner, the former member, having expressed a wish not to come forward again, the parties in the field were Mr. Fieiden and a gentleman named Hornby. Subsequently, however, in consequence of the urgent solicitations of some of his friends and supporters, Mr. Turner was induced to come forward as a candidate, on the understanding that he was not to be subjected to any expense, whatever might be the result of the contest. The election began, and, as was often the case, purity of election was the cry on both sides, and there was to be no corruption. The contest, how ever, grew hot and close, which the result evidently showed, as Mr. Turner only lost by one vote ; it became evident, therefore, that ordinary canvassing was inefficient, and means were resorted to on both sides far influencing the electors, and houses of entertainment opened in vari ous parts of the town. Among these was the house of the plaintiff, where arrangements were made for the recep tion of a considerable company, and on the 23d of June, the first day of the election, Johnson was there, in com pany with a number of other persons in the interest of Mr. Turner. The defendant appeared to be the leading person, and gave orders that an entertainment should be sent up stairs, consisting of brandy and water, &c., and also accompanied them to the room. lie also gave di rections for the accommodation of a lower class of persons in the kitchen,—not with the same exalted fare as the party up stairs were enjoying, but with rum and ale. There was considerable excitement, as is usual on such occasions, which was continued for an hour or two during the evening. Johnson gave orders for a person to be placed on the stairs, so as not to allow the lower class of individuals, who were regaling themselves in the kitchen, to obtain admission to the room occupied by the'aristo cracy above, and at the close of the jollification gave di rections for stopping the tap, which was accordingly done, and not a drop was given as soon as the shadow of John son ceased to darken the door of the plaintiff Duckworth ; a friend of the plaintiff had undertaken to score up the evening's accounts, which amounted to about £3O, on one of the doors of the house. On the day of nomination drink had also been supplied to a small amoun , by direc tion of the defendant. It appeared that shortly after this things c , me to such a pass that every voter was of the ut most confidence, and a system called bottling took place. A person named Halliwell, who had been pestered by both parties, was, by the direction of the defendant taken to the plaintiff's house, and amply provided for, the defend ant observing that he (Elalliwell) must sleep there and some one with him, and be taken care of until he was wanted. The next morning he was taken away by John son to the head quarters of the party, and after having been supplied with breakfast went and recorded his vote for Mr. Turner. The amount sought originated in the manner he had stated, and comprised in the whole a sum of about 450. Several witnesses were then called for the plaintiff's case, to prove that Johnson was at this house on the even ing in question, and gave the directions alluded to by th e learned counsel; one of them stated in cross-examination, that the proportion of brandy supplied to the party up stairs was 450 glasses, averaging 15 glasses for each per son, which was disposed of in about two hours, and that,the guests in the kitchen b a d a l arge quant it y of ale, each gallon of which was seasoned with a pint of rum, The house was very full, some of those present being obliged to occupy the yard, and there was much excitement and confusion. Mr. BArNES addressed the jury for the defendant. He observed that a more unfounded claim had never been brought into a court of justice. The defendant never de nied his liability with respect to Halliwell, for which he had made a tender of £6, which was all he had a right to pay. He would undertake to show that his client was not responsible for all those expenses brought against him. There was another fact, too, which told against the plain tiff, namely, that though three years had elapsed no ap plication had been made to the defendant, but that re peated demands had been made on the family of 111 r. Turner, who was the party liable, if there was any liability at all. Witnesses were called who stated they did not see the defendant at Duckworth's house on the evening in ques tion; that they were there, and some drink was ordered by Mr. Wm. Turner. One of them, Mr. Thomas Tur ner, the nephew of the candidate, said he had orders to open several houses, and had paid several of the accounts, having received motley from his_ uncle for that purpose, but had not paid Duckworth and some others. John Brown, who was at the house of the plaintiff on the night before the election, heard him say, when the score amounted to £lO, that all had then come in that was ordered. Witness was a waiter on the occasion, and the full value of the drink brought in during the evening, which, he believed, was ordered by Mr. Turner, would amount to £lO. He did not see the defendant there, but would not swear that be might not be present. - Mr. WortmEy replied. He said there was nothing in consistent in what had been stated with the evidence of the plaintiff; for, if that were admitted, it amounts to a chtrge of direct perjury on all those witnesses. It was quite clear that that the occasion of which the defendant's witnesses had been speaking was different to that referred to by the plaintiff, and, consequently, did not invalidate his claim. The learned JUDGE, in summing up the case, said it was melancholy to see such a trumrery cause occupying so much of the time of the Court. The jury found a ver dict for the plaintiff for £36 14s. Bd. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A LEASE. HEWITT V. LOCKETT.—The plaintiff. Mr. John Hewitt, was trustee to a lady of the name of Birley, and the de fendant, a gentleman belonging to the town. The action was for an alleged violation of a lease existing between the parties. The defendant had five pleas on the record, which were to the effect, that he had made no promise— did not under-let, as alleged, and had not allowed the house to be occupied. Mr. Martin and Mr. Cowling were for the plaintiff Mr. Watson for the defendant, assisted by Mr. Cromp ton. Mr. MARTIN stated the case. It appeared the plaintiff acted as trustee, under a marriage settlement, for Mrs. Birley, with respect to a house situate in Hope 7 street, Liverpool, which house had been leased to the defendant, in 1834, and be resided there at that time. The terms of the lease were; that the house should not be occupied otherwise than as a dwelling-house, and not as a lodging house, school, 84c. At the expiration of the lease, in 1841, which was for seven years, it was from circum stances that took place. supposed to be renewed by the defendant on the same terms, he being, considered the tenant, so far as paying the rent. The defendant had. subsequently left the house, and in September of last year it was ascertained to have been let as a lodging house, to' a person not such as was contemplated un der the terms of the agreement, by which the value of the house had become deteriorated. Some corres pondence took place with the defendant on the sub ject, but he refused to come to any arrangement in consequence of which the proceedings in question had been instituted. -Witnesses were called to prove that a house occupied by lodgers would neither let nor sell for so much, in con sequence of such occupation. Mr. WATSON was about to address the jury, when an agreement was come to, and a verdict taken for the plain tiff by consent, damages one shilling. His Lordship re-' fused to certify for the costs. THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD. ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT. -„.....-.. PITTS V. BECKETT AND ANOTHER:—The plaintiff is a wool merchant in this town, and the defendants carry on business as wool staplers, at Manchester. The action was brought to recover the sum of £149, being the value of certain wool sold to the defendants. Mr. Knowles, assisted by Mr. Crompton, were for the plaintiff; and Messrs. Martin and Atherton for the de fendants. The case was stated by Mr. Knowles. In the month of March, of the present year, the plaintiffs had a quan tity of skin wool, which they employed Messrs. Hughes and. Ronald, brokers, of this town, to sell for them, to whose office a sample was sent, t h e b u lk of the wool re maining with the plaintiff. Shortly after this the plaintiff met one of the defendants in the street, and spoke to him on the subject of the wool, and he (defendant) went with him to the brokers' office, and after examining it, bought it at a certain price, the sale notes being made out in the usual way. The wool was received by the defendant on the 9th of April, but in a day or two after this he sent a letter to the plaintiff, stating that part of the wool was not in good condition, and had shrunk in dressing. When the wool was bought by the defendants, they ought to have been prepared for such a result, as wool of that kind not unfrequently shrunk a great deal; only three sheets were complained of, for which the plaintiffs offered to make a deduction of 28lbs. ; but this the defendants refused, alle ging that the wool was not such as had been stipulated for, and the bargain ought, consequently, to be rescinded. To this th e plaintiffs could not accede, as the parties had an opportunity of i ns p ec ti ng it i n th e b u lk, and it was i n good condition when sold : the sale was not made by sam ple. and nothing Of that kind was stated in the contract. Witnesses were then called, who deposed to the sale be ing made, and that the wool was in good condition when sold. Mr. MAnTiN, on the part of the defendants, said the only qUestion was whether or not the wool Was in good condition, according to the terms of the contract. He should be able to'sli-icv that it was riot in good condition, and was also* 'deficient in Weight, and consequently the defenchnts'had'a 'right to reject it. He nth — Oiled Samuel Spence, a person in the employ of the'defendants when the wool arrived at their premises. He stated that on examination it. was found to he out of condition, and not d ry , an d, he conceived, in a state unfit for sale ; the4eight. iVhSalligiLileficient; It was ultimately sent back Other witnesse's were called, s ho corroborated the pre vious statement, but admitted on cross-examination that the wool was not inspected until it had been subjected , for a period of about twelve hours, to the operation of .a drying stove. Mr. Robinson, wool-broker, examined the wool, and considered it to be in bad condition. Mr. KNOWLES replied. There were two points which he would submit to the jury : the first was, whether there had been an acceptance of the wool by the defendants' agent. — The JUDGE.--I shall say there has not. Mr. KNOWLES.—Then the only question would be as to the evidence affecting the state of the wool, and from the statements of the parties called for the plaintiff, he thought it must be evident, that whe❑ the wool was sold and delivered to the defendants' agent, it was in good con dition. The jury rettrned a verdict for the defendants. The plaintiff was granted liberty to move. ALLEGED IMPROPER RETURN OF THE SHERIFF. HOWARTH V. GARNETT. The plaintiff in this case was George Howarth, and the defendant the late sheriff of the county, Wm. Garnett, Esq. The action arose out of the issuing forth and direc tion to the defendant of a writ. Mr. Atherton conducted the case for the plaintiff, and Mr. Knowles appeared for the defendant. The case was stated by Mr. ATHERTON. He believed it was the first of the kind on record again-t the sheriff. In July, 1843, the plaintiff was a shopkeeper, carrying on business in Preston, and had dealings with a person named Walker, who brought an action against him in the Court of Common Pleas, for the recovery of a small debt, and obtained a verdict, the costs amounting to about £l5, for which a writ of fieri faczas was issued to take his goods. A warrant was then obtained. The plaintiff sub sequently came to Liverpool, and shortly afterwards found another writ directed against him, at the suit of Walker, which was followed up by a writ against his per son. These cirumstances led to an inquiry, the plaintiff being anxious to know how it was the two proceedings— one against his goods, and the other ag.ainst his person— had arisen, and upon inquiry it was ascertained that the sheriff had returned to the first writ that the defendant in that action bad no goods within his bailidom, which was alleged to be a false return. Mr. KNOWLES addressed the jury for the defendant, observing that the case was one of the shabbiest ever brought into court. He contended that no greater amount had been distrained on in the first instance than what was legally due. The Foreman of the Jury.--We don't believe the evi dence for the Plaintiff. A verdict was accordingly returned for the defendant. The JUDGE.—It is a very abominable and disgraceful action. FIELD V. SWIFT. A verdict was taken in this case by consent, subject to a reference. The Court rose at twenty minutes past six. NISI PRIUS COURT.-TITURSDAY. BOUSLEY V. BATTERSBY. This was an action for goods sold and delivered, and on an account stated. The plaintiff was a tradesman carry ing on business as a de , ,ler in building materials, and the defendant a person not in any business, but having to do with speculating in land and houses. In September, last year, a person named Alexander Battersby applied to the plaintiff for a supply of bricks, which were furnished on the understanding that the defendant, who knew Alex. Battersby, would become responsible. Bricks to the amount of £127 had been supplied in the first instance, £4O of which had been paid ; but the defendant denied his liability as to the remainder, leaving £B7 Is. unpaid, which was the amount sought to be recovered. There was a second order, amounting to £174 155., but that had been liquidated. After some discussion on the part of the learned coun sel, a verdict was taken by consent for the plaintiff for £5O. DE WOLF AND ANOTHER V. BEVAN AND ANOTHER. The plaintiffs in this case were the assignees of persons carrying on business in this town under the firm of Nl'Leod, Wood, and Co., who had become bankrupts, and the defendants wine and spirit merchants of this town. The object of the plaintiffs was to recover the sum of £BO, being the value of some brandies which they alleged were the property of the bankrupts at the time of tneir bank ruptcy, and consequently became the property of the as signees. The case (which had been tried at the last as sizes) occupied the Court for a considerable time, and was not of any public interest. The facts were exceed ingly short. It appeared that, in 1842, five puncheons of brandy were purchased by M`Leod, Wood, and Co., from Messrs. Falk Brothers, who were said to be in fact the real defendants in the action. Subsequently, how ever, M`Leod, Wood, and Co. got into difficulties, and Falk Brothers stopped the brandy in transitu, in conse quence of the non-payment of a bill which had been ac cepted by the bankrupts. An application was then made by the plaintiffs to Messrs. Bevan and Co., in whose vaults the brandy was lying, requesting them to give up possession of the goods, they (the plaintiffs) alleging that as the assignees of the bankrupts they were entitled to them. The defendants persisted in their refusal, on the ground that the brandy had been retained by Falk Bro thers, as a lien on the bill above named, and was conse quently their property. The question was whether or not the defendants were justified in the course they had adopted. A document, entitled a 1 tter of license, formed a very prominent feature in the case, as it contained the signa tures of various creditors of Messrs. M'Leod, Wood, and Co. amongst which was the firm of Falk Brothers, said to have been written by Mr. Robert Falk in the presence of the bankrupts. Mr. Falk, however, denied the genu ineness of the signatut e, and said it was merely a clumsy imitation. The jury found a verdict for the defendants. CHARGE OF NEGLIGENCE AGAINST A PILOT. GAWNE AND ANOTHER V. LEWIS. The plaintiffs in this case were Messrs. Edward Gawne and Co., owners of the Queen of the Isle steamer, and the defendant a licensed pilot of this port. The action was for damage dine to that vessel by the negligent ma nagement of a ship under the command of the defendant. The damages were laid at £39 12s. 6d. Messrs. Martin and Cardwell were for the plaintiff; and Mr. Sergeant Murphy and Mr. Aspinall for the de fendant. Mr. MAnTlN.stated the case. On the 25th of August last year, the Queen of the Isle steamer was lying at an chor in her usual position, opposite the baths at George's Pier, taking in coals. It was about nine in the evening, and rather dark ; a light was, however, placed in the usual way at the mast-head. The defendant Lewis, who had charge of a vessel called the George Canning, was coming up the river with the view of getting into one of the upper docks, and there was at the time.very little wind; the tide was also running rapidly, being about two hours before flood. The man on the look-our, on board the steamer, saw the vessel coming up, and, fearing a collision, hailed her, but no answer was returned, and the result was that she came in contact with the steamer, side on, carrying away her figure-head and bowsprit, and doing other damage. He (the learned counsel) consi dered the injury was occasioned by the negligence of the defendant, as he was in a part of the river not usually resorted to by vessels of that size, there being, at the dine, abundance of room, if he hr.d chosen to avail him self of it. Mr. Sergeant Mus.Priv addressed the jury for the de fendant. He contended that a proper look-out had not been kept by the,parties on board the steamer; and with respect to the defendant's vessel being out of her course, he should be able to show that such was not the case; he (the defendant) had intended to anchor for the night near where the collision took place, so as to take advantage of the morning's tide; and enter the King's Dock. . The plaintiffs had been contributary to th-t damage, and con sequently could not recover. The learned gentleman concluded by calling witnesses. James ltowbottom, a boatman, who boarded the George Canning 'n the river, stated, that the crew were on deck, and the steamer was hailed. He did not observe any light, and it was not perceptible whether she was a steamer or anything else. The pilot let go the anchor when about half a cable's length from the Queen, but the anchor dragged, and they called out immediately for them to port the helm, which not being attended to by the par ties on board the steamer, was the cause of the collision. Several other witnesses were called who gave similar testimony ; and Mr. Cook, inspector of pilots, deposed that the place where the George Canning was about to cast anchor, would be considered a proper position under the circumstances. Mr. MARTIN replied, to the effect that the evidence produced for the defendant had utterly failed. It had been proved beyond a doubt that his clients had been injured• by the defendant's negligence, and were vonne quently entitled to a verdict for damages. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, X 39 12s. 6d. The Court adjourned shortly after seven o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.-FRIDAY. WHARTON V. WRIGHT. " This was an action brouzlit by the plaintiff, - Joseph Wharton, against the defendant, Joseph Wright, to re cover the amount of six bills of exchange, four of which were endorsed by the defendant, and for which it was alleged he was liable. The defendant denied his liability. Mr. James and Mr. Atherton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Martin for the defendant. It appeared from the statement of counsel, and the evi dence of the various witnesses, that the defendant, at the time of the transactions, when the bills were given, occu pied the Brunswick Hotel, in this town, but had since gone to reside in Northamptonshire. His brother, Wrn. Wright, occupied the Brunswick previously, and in 1338 an arrangement was made between them whereby the defendant became the occupier. The plaintiff, a gentle man now out of business, was intimately acquainted with them, and for the yurpose of assisting the defendant to carry on business, procured credit for him, and became entrantee for the supply of liquors to the house. Some of the bills bad arisen out of those transactions, and the only defence consisted of a denial of the handwriting. The jury found a yerdict for plaintiff for £26 18s. FERIMAN V. BARNES. This was an actioninougl;t bytheplaintiff, James Fe rigan, against the defendant, Robert Barnes, for the reco very of the amount of a bill of exchange for £5O. The defendant pleaded that he had not accepted, that it was endorsed after it became due, and he denied the first and second endorsements. Mr. Sergeant Murphy and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. James for the defendant. A verdict was returned for the plaintiff for the full amount. TYRER AND ANOTHER V. ELLISON. This was an undefended action, brought by Messrs. Tyrer and Lever, carriers on the Leeds and Liverpool Canal, and bran-dealers , to recover a sum of £ll3 for bran sold and delivered by them to the defendant, Mr. Ellison, a miller and dour-dealer, near Blackburn. A verdict was returned for. the plaintiff for the full amount. BARNES V. SEDDON. The plaintiff in this case was John Barnes, and the de fendant James Seddon. The declaration contained counts for work and labour done, and on an account stated. Tile defendant pleaded that, except as to £l5, which he had paid into court, he was never indebted ; and be also pleaded a set-off, which set-off was denied. Without examining witnesses, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, subject to a reference. HAWORT V. WHALLEY. In this case the plaintiff, who did not appear i❑ court, was non-suited. DEWHURST V. SYKES AND ANOTHER. This was an action brought by John Gore Dewhurst against James Sykes and Thomas Walley. The declaration was for work and labour done as an attorney, money paid, and on an account stated. Mr. Sykes denied his and the other defendant had suffered judgment to go by default. Mr. James appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Knowle3 for the defendant. Mr. JAMES stated the case. The plaintiff was a re spectable attorney residing in Liverpool, and the de fendant, Sykes, together with four other gentlemen, some personally, and some in - right of their wives, were legatees under the will of a person named Clay. In the year 1840, a Mr. Holden was the surviving trustee under the will ; and he made the necessary preparations for puttir:g up a portion of the property for sale. The legatees, not liking this course to be pursued, gave instructions that a bill should be filed in Chancery to restrain Holden from sell ing, and employed the plaintiff for that purpose. The bill was not filed eventually, but a great many steps were taken to bring the matter before the Court of Chan cery. There was no proof that. Sykes had given the plain tiff a distinct retainer, but there was no doubt of his having called at the plaintiff's office from time to time, and given instructions, and intimated that he had advanced £5 towards the current expenses. The =omit of the bill, altogether, was £46 ; £2O had been paid on account, and the balance of £26 was now sought to be recovered. At the close of the case, the plaintiff was non-suited. All the common juries.having been here disposed of, his Lordship proceeded to try the remaining special jury cause in the first list : BENTLEY V. FLEMING. This WAS an action brought by Henry Bentley against Thomas Fleming. Mr. Watson, - Mr. Rotche, and Mr. Webster appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Knowles, Mr. Baines, and Mr. Cowling for the defendant. Mr. WATSON stated the case. He said the plaintiff was a reel and spindle manufacturer, carrying on business at Salford, and the defendant was a card-maker at Halifax, in the county of York ; and the action was brought by the plaintiff, who was the assignee and owner of a patent, against the defendant, for an infringement of that patent. The law relating to patents was well known : suffice it to say that, according to law, where the sovereign granted letters-patent to a person, that person had the exclusive use of that patent for a period of fourteen years ; and that the crown, when it granted a patent, granted it only for those who were the inventors, and in eases where the invention was new. These were the great questions in the case. In the present case, the letters-patent were obtained for a machine for making cards ; and it was one of the most beautiful machines the public ever saw. This machine was discovered and invented by William Parr Thornton. who reided at Clackheaton, in the county of York. Prior to the year 1837, the machines used in the manufacture of cards were imperfect and inconvenient ; but, about that time, Mr. Thornton turned his attention to the subject, with the view of making one perfect and complete in every respect. He was for several years making the necessary experiments. He made several model machines, but tailed in perfecting them ; and it was not until the month of December, 18-11, that he was able to make one thoroughly perfect. Whilst making the expe riments, he had a mill at Clackheaten, but being unable to occupy the whole of it, persons of the name of Carver and Brierly occupied the remainder of the concern. The learned counsel here pointed out the principle of Thorn ton's machine, which was placed in front of the bar, and took up considerable space, and observed that there was a great difference between this machine and that known as Dyer's which was the one generally in use before the pa patented machine had been invented. In Dyer's the lea ther was moved ; in the patent machine, the head-work ; in fact, the latter differed from the former in four mate rial respects—namely, the motion of the head-work upon a fixed notched bar ; secondly, the reverse motion of the head-work • thirdly, the drawing of th e s h eet ; an d fourthly, the suspension of the jaw frame. It has been already observed that Thornton had tried a good many models—some with loose and others with fixed notched bars, but that he was unable to discover the perfect one until December, 1841. He then proceeded to get his patent, but being a person in humble circumstances, a gentleman of the name of Williamson advanced him the necessary amount of money for the purpose. During the time that he was making the models, Carver was constantly on the premises to know what he was about. Report had gone about the country that he was making the discovery of a new machine ; several were anxious to find out of what it consisted ; but, before the date of the patent, no one had ever invented such a machine. From December, 1811, to June, 1842, Mr. Toornton's attention was called to make the machine as perfect as possible, and having been assisted by a person named Robert Shaw, he speci fied his patent on the 21st of June, 1842. That specifi cation was drawn in the usual form ; but Mr. Thornton had then the mortification of finding that many of the persons who had obtained surreptitious access to his workshop, were constructing machinesprecisely similar in principle as his own, and selling them about the neigh bourhood. In copsequence, however, of his having fallen into difficulties anut this time, he was t: tr n iit a gi tn b ithn l oc e alli t iBr o iy4ei j e tvti s eef i n,ty s jotl t , owner. hhscvseeliii assign th eNplaintiff,e patentveinrt infringements, set4loe3s and ,IsN,wi Williamson, was hioaernwpsoaanrs:i c eaw o st m h oui p 7 e isle l oo l s e led r no l into Thornton's workshop, continued to go on with their piracy, and formed themselves into a league, for the purpose of carrying out their objects, still more effectually. There was no doubt that the patent was a good and valuable one, and that the defendant, by infringing it, had subjected himself to an action at law. The learned counsel went on to show that he s:-..0u1d be able to disprove the several pleas put on the record by the defendant, and that the patent was lesser in price than Dyer's, and that it saved a considerable amount of wages. He then called a number of witnesses to prove the va luable nature of the patent, and the mode in which it had been infringed in principle by the defendant ; but the court adjourned at seven o'clock, before all the witnesses for the plaintiff had been heard. NISI PRIUS COURT.-SATURDAY. Mr. BAiNEs applied to his lordship to grant speedy ex - - ecution in this case. grounding his application on two affi davits, one to the effect, that steps had been taken for the purpose of sweeping away all the defendant's property to prevent the satisfaction of the plaintiffs demand ; and that, after the verdict was given, the defendant was 1 eard to say, by James Cook, one of the witnesses of the tri.3l, It is all right : I am prepared for it." Mr. WATSON said it was exceedingly inconvenient that an application of this kind should be made at the end of the week, when the Solicitor General and Mr. Dutidas, who, with himself, (Mr. Watson,) were counsel for the defendant, had gone. If his lordship granted immediate execution it would be the utter destruction of the defen dant. The Junon asked whether Mr. Watson would give security? Mr.'WATSON replied, that he knew not ; what he should apply for was, an opportunity of answering the affidavit. His lordship granted Mr. Watson's application to answer the affidavits on Monday. BENTLEY V. FLEMING The hearing of this case was then resumed ; and, at the clase of the plaintiff's case, Mr. KNOWLES addressed the jury for the defendant, contending, that there had net been any infringement, inasmuch as the invention was not new. The Jury, after an absence from court for six hours, returned a verdict for the plaintiff. CROSKILL V. GROUNSELL. This was another special jury case. similar to the last, in which the plaintiff, William Croskill, a machine-Maker, of Beverley, in Yorkshire, brought an action against Wil liam Grounsell, another machine-maker, of Louth, in Lincolnshire, for the infringement of the patent of a clod crushing-machine, used in agricultural purpories. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and that the invention was not new. Mr. Knowles, Mr. Martin, Mr. Cowling, and Mr. Unthank appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Watson and Mr. Webster for the defendant. At the close of the plaintiff's case, at six o'clock, the Court adjourned to nine this morning. Neither of the foregoing cases possessed the slightest interest, except to the parties concerned. FASHIONS FOR SEPTEMBER. (From the "London and Paris Ladies' Magazine cf Fashion.") s g t o The or ornament a rnmakee" t than a Il d resses. foriari . bt:fieaheT.,iea.hshpip en: or c reo:o,n.hrt,t,isilhi become rather common, is often replaced h b r y a t . i: i t o with smal or a . palles, many terminating at h t e gives n l f e u t r i gt tt autumnal to the j w a u c i k s e t t ; s, th n i l s o more lour l willess prev e ailing egs offe rsw le i sleeves vh more e sl lacings v saevi re ve rs, li eats: na h buckle, which is now insensibly re large buttons are vrry short, wide or • tight, but the and may he worn long or dresses. Many corsages are round tu w o r ri n tl in ee t i u ntu f r u e vu a u n r d ; Oriental is still the favourite. Cannezous with sleeves are worn with low bodies ; they are of embroider; d muslin, terminating at the waist with a small jacket embroidered in a wreath, which forms he a ding to a narrow lice, the half-long sleeve correspond_ ink. Guitnpes are also made with sleeves. Pelisses or dolmans, lightly wadded and quite distinct from.the winter costume, are mad e f or t h e promenade ;• they are taffetas d' Italie of pale colours ; the hood and sleeves only are trimmed with lace ; Some are of plain Indian foulard, buttoning from top to hottorn.. The onanleau de voyage is of silk or thin -merino, lightly wadded, and lined with coloured silk, made very full and with hood, often with a large pelerine and a running string at the waist, and wide sleeves with wristbands. The manlelets of transparent materials with sleeves, worn during the summer, are now made in fancy silks, either checked or striped glace - es, trimmed with.a small eltieor6 ruc/te. Acacia, lilies of the valley, rcses, tremieres, double poppies mixed with corn-flowers, are :elected at this ino ment to ornament bonnets ; a bouquet of. field. Rowers on a paille de riz is very pr,;•ty. Fancy straws are worn with flowers or feathers : veils and 'roitetta are much .usedrprtieularly at t!..e sea:side. Pietty. Wait' eq.s 'are made with simple crowns, small and round.in front, with vapi/lorrs of tulle bouillorinC . , having a .ribbon thrt•egh them: Sept. 3, 1844. CORRESPONDENCE. MEDICAL REFORM BILL. TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD', SlR,—` z /ill you allow me to occupy a small space 112. your columns, in order to arouse the attention of t he fae, dical profession and the public to the proposed measurearte medical reform, which is now before the country. T he t , are nearly 300 medical men i n Li ver pool, and it is a ma, ter of surprise that a bill, which will alter the whole aspecr; of the profession, seems to have excited no at tentio s amongst them. And yet it is a fact, that the con , eclne t t e , to society, which will follow f r o m it s adoption by p arka meat, will be evil, and only evil. I am glad to observe that there is a movement the country on the subject, - and it is to be libped that ber t ` also the sentiments or the body chose interests are ra n ° s of immediately concerned, will be freely expressed. It ar e to be supposed that the intentions of governm en 'h•cb otherwise than good ; but in legislating on matters are only known to professional men, they must, d !„ Pe the entirely on information derived from without; and ' - h pen present case there can be no doubt that they have been most grossly misled. Indeed, if the British College Health, which vends Morison's Pills, had been consu l o r e it is impossible to conceive any piece of legislation giro, calculated to degrade medicine, and exalt quackery, P ceeding from such advice. have Quackery is acknowledged, for the first time, to c r. 8 legal existence by this bill; while its restrictions on tu j e c i s , cal education are such, that it holds out a direct ju uli All merit to the increase of unlicensed pra2titioners. bat medical men are to be registered, not by comntasi tl „:os• by certain inducements, which they are tither in 1 3 '7 1 , -- iog sion of at present, or which 19-twentieths care p 0 r e. about; and all parties who choose to practise withou t to . zistering, may do so, whether they be possessed of d i P o o all or!! mas or not. In short, any one may put a brass pled n o his door, with the title doctor or surgeon thereon, an.,i o o man has a right to prevent him. The pecuniary P° s o o. of the quack is much better than that of th e reg,ttlar P tt be titioner, and the only difference between them is, k quack cannot hold an appointment to an hospital or i s aplesnosary,w submithtioc)li, a i n n d dee h d e , c h a e nn c o a t re p s ro n s o e t c h u i t n e g 1-I .„ e t ist debt, obliged w h t c s h e r h v e e on ca n juries easily ev (which ade his b y fe n l l o o t w his t trusting u u s b l j t e n c g ts "^ i b i r t The all but universal opinion of the measure ie odfegra quackery,de s the n a o n b d l e it sciencelet lets looseof medicineall sorts into of i a ra l p i i i s o g ' s h i e t t h i t r o bat4 l 7 t 7:o ; society. A temperate, and, at the same time, - fina, e " . pression of opinion, on the part of medical men, will P r ; vent the sanc nary of their profession from being profei t . ' so as to become a place within whose precincts no ge nt t io man or man of honour can enter ; and to such a sta te proposed bill would at once debase it. I am, yours, &c. ACADEMICtic o' ST. GEORGE'S CLOCK. TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STAND. ARA .0 SlR,—What the reason is of St. George's clock baitl told so many falsehoods latterly, I do not know; b, 1 . 1 ,e, really wonder that he is not ashamed of s h ow ing his P IO Possibly he is in affliction, as be keeps his hands " l k lll's ( eves). At all events, as he is so mu ch looke° he ought to be better looked after; and if be won'll ° ' would humbly sw> ° eest that he be taken off. Yours, &c., ONE. OF THE porjoY s. Monday morning. tY, DOCK COMMITTEE, THURSDAY.—Mr. Moore .- A chair. An additional lamp was ordered to be place " t o each of the dock-police stations.—lt was ordered that 90 house of the master of the Queen's Dock should b e o il altered as to make it more convenient, and that a 51- 60 . hut should be furnished for the dock gatemen.—Th e ;ibe rine surveyor presented a report with reference Owl breaking adrift of the bell beacon. He stated that iti o f been repeatedly run foul of, but b e i ng con structs t ie iron, found to be uninjur e d. O n exam i n i n g the C hia where it had snapped, it was found to be strong euoug dr ea hold a vessel of 150 tons, whereas the buoy only mea s 'aite 22 tons. He stated also that the proportion of buot_ s o o stroyed, stove, or struck by steamers to those which Pi. 5 0 their moorings by severity of the weather was at lea s ' t bs to 1, and these casualties were likely to increase 85 10 trade increased in the narrow entrances to this river.lsoo the harbour of Liverpool there were 65 buoys with fathoms of chain mooring in continual motion by th „ ;; 0 • Lion of the sea, and subject to the friction attendan t r , O O sandy bottom. 61 of these buoys rode by moorings "0 twelve to twenty fathoms in length. The red buoys 0 58 changed every six or eight months, and the black. dst every twelve months, and their moorings are exaV ne the same time. Since 1839 not one of the light "P s , vof broken from her station or altered her position so a to be a proper guide to the channels. During that elle the bell beacon was twice drifted, but in each inst ant inference is, that she has been dragged away in quence of vessels running foul of her. The nutun',ol buoys drifted or torn away in 1840 was seventeen, to the eight, in 1842 six, and in 1843 two.—The services ° , 4 rlr Formby Life-boat, in going to the assistance of the schooner, ashore on the Mad Wharf, was report eu p , Thomas Herbert, master of the Toxteth Dock, svt' S .0 Thomaspointed t p o re t n h t e on Sa w lt a lru a s p e po D in o te ck d , a to t th ta e k s e am ci e m s r a g l e ari oL i 4. - ! 1 was the alsop a st submitted, u m b o m n i t t h t e , d showing w stated in Toxteth Dock, at 30s. a week.—The receipts for ligr,. - ; ° 4 dock dues for vessels entering the port of Runcorn °," 0 ";‘, 1178 ; receipts, £5B 175., being a decre.."'''' t plan gthe to la b n e d —vesaeus'&°l99;4°. ni" pared with the corresponding mouth of last Yeart.o be me chased chased for forming the navigable cut to ne t c h7 s c ' a r n Yah , ri A d a3 t b e ; morial was read from the shippers to Portugal Mediterranean, praying for the allotment of a axed s h e lf berth for the line of vessels trading to these Place s l , t he was referred to the harbour. masters' sub-conamitte e_e Chairman remarking that it would be a saving o f `p ad the accede to the wishes of the memorialists. Drafts O ,Abl deed for securing the instalment of £50,000, to b e P" : t, the Leeds and Liverpool Canal Company. were su b !" ; ott by the solicitor, and the seal of the trust was autherl%tort be placed to the deed. The Chairman said the prop i l: were to pay the next instalment, £28,000, as soo n " land for the cut was purchased. .41 1, OFFICE ROBBERIES.—On Thursday, Jane Hat°,,r;, s is who gets her living by going round the different ely_ c i i der the town•begging, was . brought before Mr. Rushton , u ri og the following circumstances. On Wednesday o , ° sp irig she called at the office of Mr. Darlington, wine anu, t her dealer, Great Charlotte-street ; Mr. Darlington toup not to come again; but in the afternoon she was t ee se a the_staircase near the door of the private office. 0 1 l en , as she found she was observed she made off, 90 , 0 0 a shortly afterwards 18 sovereigns were missed ~,, r ,; e t t l drawer, which had been left open - in the office. taken into custody at eleven o'clock at night, but O r ; deo', the money being found upon her, she was rol a 0' Money having lately been missed from the el'WeJ" Messrs. Leigh and Whitley, 18s. were marked en.,„, por nesday, and being stolen, were afterwards found 1 " tbe, ll session of the office boy, William Hickson, schc't,deat confessed his guilt. He was brought up anti retn f l e d . tr doubtless with the view of being restored to his ' ri f t rei w without the contamination received by imprisonnle . " felons. THE EXTRAORDINARY CASE ON BOARD SI:I-ft0. 1 8 our last week's publication we furnished an accou n ho tti er disclosure made to Sir John Pirie, at the Mansion"oo' London, by a seaman named Laidlow, relative t O , B pol t ; snction on board the ship John Campbell, of th is „ e , l the property of Mr. William Sharp, of Drury-110 0 o ' this town—not (as erroneously stated) Sir Joseph ars!` A , From that statement an inference might have Lenl)iegev that the conduct of the supercargo—who, it was $ alto r had wrongfully assumed the command of the si"roh'g o the death' of the captain (Nelson) on the voyage— if, the fret instance, be en un ju s tifi a bl e , and e vent be Old Calabar, murderous towards the crew. Sir J */ t very reasonably doubted (=is stated) the veracity : fi to, ‘ seaman's rather unaccountable story ; and, t°,,:iet l ,'„ himself, wrote to the owner here. The magistratf was received yesterday week by Mr. Sharp, whot_, ln bi . ?;l stake that Mr. H. Burnley, the supercargo, had 55e1 thority in writing to take the command of the c- e re'"e case of the death of Captain Nelson, and that lh tet eP i his was.the only lawful authority on board after do cr e o Before taking the command, he read to the ' 0 , 1 : ° , 1 0 13 0 1 Mr. Sharp's letter, so authorising him. Mr. '' et p4 oo J furnished to a contemporary Mr. Burnley's s c , e s t, the proceedings, which is dated 27th February ° was received in Liverpool six. or seven weeks antlo s 4 l at this it appears that the crew broke out into 01 ,6 r ia on the 9th February, in Old Calabar River , $ s,P h e Captain Burnley, after consulting Capt. Willia lo 4 ' Smith, and other English captains in the rive r, ? - 0 9 , iP proper course to be adopted with the mutirlee l f:rar c '4l to the nat:vo king for his protection and ass„ 1 "):1 0 4110 quelling the untiny. The letter to his neg Le. was signed by every English captain in thee r" - 01 13- ,10, at tack on the vessel is thus described :—" liingoe, a ", a ll sent some canee§ off, with strict orders not 10 , e oth I t'o' gentleman in each canoe for the purpose of Pr ov e ., c ebla those who might be so disposed. At about 9 3 ,: t e P 1 1," so ral armed canoes went off to the ship, but, sc- hein h o e ieB to get on board in consequence of the sh'„P s ide " t le s high out of the, waterL the side ladder on n''' t he hauled up ; and the other cut away as soon 3 ,2 .4 o n got on it; firing pistols and throwing hot wa'.; end e o pl 6 , As they would not give in, King Evarnba w a 'his Ps ee 0 ' necessity, after having two men shot, to gi ce ke ts, Other orders orders to fire. They fired two or three 000 Ties 3. , 1 " which shot Edward Callaghan on the cheek• a, au l! e itiB cooled them. The Kroomen 'then commerl,cerest, the carpenter over the side into a canoe. 'Pie a I°' ' f a' ; a • J 3 0,4 it was useless attempting to keep poss7s-Z o tala t ve ran below, and stowed themselves away• e te n mo o der ley proceeds to describe the condition 0 1 ., 10 , e WO; were sent to prison: namely, William L BI Y GiliOn , 0' son, Joseph King. Edward Johnson, Sarn i ,!, e .' l ,,,,han• Hall, Walker, Williams, Benest, and ‘-" , ".4,,eq.ed t 0 these only three required surgical assistane:a:,uppiee_ derson, Laidlow, and Callaghan, and grit!. E t °of them. On searching' the men's chests se , 0 ,10 ,1 ' 5 0 0 titles were found, and also gunpowder, slng_s_:,ede various descriptions. Captain 13urnleyP,r_tuao that the men were furnished with provielc,"_', t he e elt s Mr. Sharp's letter to the authorities i 111 0 0! attended to, but does not givead at the Mansion House on TuesdayLiest the„., to, dition to some of the above facts, that in J plain:ant, was cne of the m utineers, and ti 11 _ 11 heel the t j u fle Captain Burnley, be i ns . • • e t e ,e- Wel n u ' HO • jef statement of the meeting-, received- rrir" 1 3rr , He also states that the ship had not y a ct 0.10; that he has no rea.-on to -suppose Cy 1 . ° , 0 would commit such an .act vs that w -h r 7 l l ,i; e sai t , l ) ; Bo charges him.—The Lord Meyer and Sir _ „ ro per „ r o• into when F an, r the matter should tee inquired tea of:information arrived, and Laidlow, the mised to attend. the segnue}.7,!_don wa.7_ jr=~