The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-08-29 00:00:00

ItAGEASSAULT ON TWO OF THE OFF ' 4 EtS IN THE WORKHOU SE BY A PAUPER.I- 41;zlerhIlr,Sday last, a you ng man nd am S ilthht°o, fr autntihthe Workhouse, was named brought Willi before M mith r. , korderoos e Polic e - court, on a charge of having, with other ofintentions, assaulted the governor and another breaki o that establishment, with a hammer used for the Verystones for macadamising. The case excited r 4 s _ l rlai m e e : t hr to ... t eres . t . in the coUr . t,t.heprsoner having se . urie o4d r u r t vicusly been punished for viglent and refrac etantnitt ,c . , and the impressio n being that be would be 'Hal at the assizes. St o f G alloway being called, said he was superinten- N s a w ns at . is culled " the probationary ward," but As- in reality, manager of the " refractories." • fiy or ri ner after having been in the Borough Gaol for d y .aYs. came back to the Workhouse on the 21st sveredt_,ne was sent to the probationary ward, and or past sr to work ; when he said to witness that he id s o. and that two doctors out of doors had hr ;vitness took him to the day room, until the . the 0 f l ye establishment should be consulted. On ~tneSsass Y, cmied on Mr. Nightinall (the surgeon). that Mr. Ni g hti nga wheth e r llthe prisoner wss .he could i tut quite able not work, and he said he was not, but it . to sod r to work ; and told prisoner that if he would 4 y : 4 tte the°B stones, he should be punished. Witness J l !lgiu sas m s itbY with prisoner for a hammer, and on itotchehlary went towards the o ffi ce, the prisoner tier str the witness, and as they got near to it the oas t tick hi er, NI% ni on the back of the neck with the noihi n "'less said he then became insensible , and e i t itioll e , More till he found himself lying in the o ffi ce. lio:tt_Previously threatened to do him some grie ;7:ter, i',, i u tn a rta• On cross-examination by the prisoner, !ci with Fss admitted that after he was struck he him to the office to . book him, and did . not sse e got to th het" gos er „ e passage leading into it. He did not Ip ' )1 1s i tsi tt the;lo..' struck. In reply to Mr. Rushton, wit ss tak en , surgeon questioned the prisoner when rri u hi ` . o him, but did not examine his person in °1 tho 'i s e P Witnessed with a produced a hammer long handle, used in breaking t4 els aal itu „ gall was then called. He said, in reply to tieroti t h u g e t that the prisoner had been an inmate of } 4t4 /1 : 1 1)11 • s e for some years off and on, and that he a t 4sical • . m a . ',capacity. When in the house before, stoi.'llsis ss l ned that the rectum had fallen down ; but sstesiwltterfere with his working, and he directed itt2 hto reduce the disorder. ritlit:er said that the doctor did not examine him t o ; l !'h e meeae returned to the house and told him he was 1,),1 sot, r°Plaint, he added, came on him in the Bo hyt'Zl fternshere he was in the s aospital. He had also he s.iaPeworm while in the house before. He Ills or is" . ° some time ago got a certificate from Mr. Nerlirois-'le•street (the parish surgeon appointed by kilts ha d Hers for ' that district of the town,) and bot gl'en to Mr. Gray, of the Parish-o ffi ce, but 11 4 , ..Ilitthtiended sail itleit'steriognfall he was not aware that the prisoner Is tu tt et lth ot s r cqa the intestinal complaint stated, but L. Ur •ne had suffered from tapeworm. jl(1;`. aho"Tight Evans , o w . rh r the governor of the house, said no t l o l)e stbe ee 0 clock on the day in question, Mr. t t P him and reported that Smith—" the Lis ite sts to s ed (said the witness)—was back again, aot s i d `', l _", saying to him (Galloway) that two had said that he was not able to work. tvill o ;oil e he rut him to break stones." Soon after itibss, ta w was standing in the court-yard, he saw '7. lai rd "Pig towards him (witness) from the proba -11, °la Tell 4 h 'esved by the prisoner, who was menacing isty..4llo,44..tniner. Witness did not know at the time Itq t e n e. p t ' i had been struck, and advanced to his as -84)11?er then ran at witness, and aimed a blow Olo rt crag hi e` h ammer, as a butcher would at an ox ; d 11 441 8 44 4 4:1 ,e1f in danger he ran. After running a f uis (WitfleSS'S) ' knees failed him—he could 14 ell s • or .q a , gain a nd and he staggered and fell. He got up .u te h v s ,' kil o , et S q .- e prisoner tell over him, and pitched ,h4 s tsule distance before him. He did not feel grt . ise t' me, %l if e 'we, but afterwards felt that his back .41 4"th a T r ?eUred surgical aid, and was bled with f , isimce suffered much from the effects of Lre o ,' , fr o a "lng, he at first thought he had received Oft b i lk 414 knife, as he knew the prisoner was a .4e 4.1 1811 , .e n t. ktev e ;lN,,,,`4,Eed to Mr. Lowndes (the solicitor for his en , ,tnat he thought it due to the prisoner, tll4 -1 ,14, ;„Iluoct had been, that the certificate from 4, 80 re 'ell as it was, should be produced. He r.s.t l h ti cti otl it ire the evidence of Mr. Cripps, as no tit oftough ththe Man had been made by Mr. Nightin ta!klii.te pri sn i n s was no extenuation of the savage con tlhghtinv4r sad regard to the assau ( t. Olth a e d o : said the prisoner had come from the Ol e ' was 1 11 ° ' the assault, and he did not therefore Vis e e4 asid ere. , In reply to Mr. Rushton, he said he Os i li i's s , 4 bo t h the blows given decidedly dangerous to htc i s t ' p artes tis Lce parties at the time. He found 141 r. WI of t th e ,‘,"_e assault half laid down in the governor's wals net or print of the hammer head on the 5 7 ,44, 48 a eon ' t , close upon the vertebra at the top. 11 1 1 , 4 4 1 °f th e L t s ,icril but no wound, and no cutting or f i stbie e atat ot B ' s ul• (The offence was, therefore, not catl o pr e 'or malicious injuries to the person in ltls,,tqat e bs.t.'es) Witness found the governor in a Ntle et 7,...Zasin-ennotulresame mark as in the other case, ero ot . 'Ot e. preyi reminded Mr. Rushton that the pri- LILL °l tslY been before him for threatening with t i l l's-4411 1t t°11 said Ile was aware of the fact. 1 4 1 kItts t nee r, ci g f ers, the workhouse baker, and another si tt rtr at t l for st ß a ` t a . t,ed that they saw Galloway struck. He bay sa w " 1 . arid fell in the o ffi ce passage. They sitsbe a d Phnsoner strike the governor, and again te tl3 lit on ' b ut he fell. s 4, 444 hiti tsddressing the prisoner, said that in con qthibit ate.iiient relative to the certificate, and et,h i th e h. Lod cant For xi:. A...1, r , ch. 41 )4 hg l , who was now present, arid would ex- L t qls l , 4 d be; consented. The prisoner expressed his 414,1ati0 ` rig put down , M • Arc her (accompanied by 14 tekttsetril) retired to exa m ine him. .140, t ,f th e n his teturn, said that the prisoner had tlrit .4 re re ctum, hut that it was reducible. He to Mr. Rushton, that he considered the 'll- i n stories would agg ravate the disease. He kt. tra c k it the Contusions to life, as rnek were dangerous t e i L s hto o u e re Protected by muscles. If s "Thcsatki u rged the witness to be explicit on this Oh e tt ledij t hat when a conflict of opinion arose Fetch wen, it was quite clear what the result lltOer in ß i a u i? that he would only speak with refe- Vt` 4 l lOr le s as they appeared, and adhered to his :411e eo th ars e d,i, t yro' so bated down the character of the teot Prisoner could not, as was before in ""c trial before the higher tribunal—the Ar h fOr ,e''er'g evidence was being taken down in ly . imor e etotne time demurred to say positively, as /l eigp t. 4? 1 . 11,1 s t : r te ci , whether the occupation of breaking Zatir, s tl res s 4 theP y s ate the prisoner's complaint. He said . L 4 10 6 144 t o have that effect than otherwise ; but `stNit.'le ha d ''`Ite Positively that it would, or to re slivlaletl.wo4l_,btore said, lie, after a long pause, said, nave a tendency to aggravate such a !!:I °t lei:DlY ettittliseattes evidence of both surgeons relative to the 4 ‘Zor t t'dti tek and the blows he inflicted, and as it L4llts• Bir ds !It in writing in order to show how 'l4 e, without here offering any opinion of ( 4ti i• eteol koN a r e , t h t e day ! g-b tingall.— I n the case of Galloway, I Llrit il ' ; `tlif t ,' In, question) a contusion on the lower CO. en d e d i l tue size of the head of the hammer. I 10. 1 0 alieur•.Evans, and found him much ex iitte4. wt o touti Li st in a fainting state. I examined his 44 4 , the Liston on the upper of t t e k a s s . sea Pala. I consider the injuries in ' 110 lee b o dy °n as the hammer produced, upon +lirof e• (I'4 o von Which they were inflicted, dan iNt % t o Its ou ue witness had previously stated that 8 °old not injure a person having in °- Vet ‘ t ,leiti °ll ,of i f l i s i4 roti r •—•l have this day examined the h 'me r e s'utb, and find him labouring under an o tr tio tit) o e tesc c i tun a Which is reducible by his own I S T S, !lot e xamined Mr. Evans and Mr. Gallo 11;is'Y t o ' coo:!nsider the injuries inflicted on them tllkittiqtlth,,,,:,(tier that stone-breaking would have _ a 14,%4„'e t sach a complaint as the prisoner's. lel 4 `eis reakil t tlred of the workhouse officers whe tlitZilyittlier lt°,.g stories sat or stood? Most of them ts;',l2. cato e 't • o thers that they sometimes stood; %Xi L ard °flt that th ere was as muc h stand i ng t i i t4,l4,mit fo r thelrt,of the P ar i s h- o ffi ce , w h o was sent 1 0 14 4 % eyresolouPtrponer had been an inmate of the h t eer ti l t s to h !te, and that for a certain period . s a :,qu s to t 'ocat s I to as out-door relief, as he h 4 1 ‘41 1 ' 1 4' '° th e " s ,`" ) him from Mr. Crips, about four ittestllrssitstated.eltirect that he was unable to work from kOtir s ' ItOt e ,, it was afterwards thought that he thsl l et'eer and that his allowance should be tttit ,Nt tk t eaki . l ed `",4 1 . 1 .4t st n ;:` no Particular task was assigned . to " 447 0 Pe r „ - 7, e s• [How does this accord with Its ta,..4ll?l'Ptio•- have been frequently brought before 4syt.llo-,01 th e trilled for not breaking a certain quan p h;e witp,jt leith i c're thgeses having, by some mistake, been y the jed. 'nations were taken, the pri s Ss er Pris Ohl 1 04 . was ,oner was again brought up. kitl4,,,lel ls , li e u 7, l ted what he had to say, with the roe tu tu, " They forced the hammer upon \14 1 %4 4 ,4 a gai n strike them, as they did not want Ar t 1 4' 4 eski l * but to get me back gaol." 'O4 the e tah tOrh„ et 1, a ould commit the i r pisoner to the li;t11 i gad art!ated assaults on both the parties. 1 t O ught it hssallllY been a most outrageous cha- Vo o tohmse and out of it • but thought he "rlti,estatitiettoyerly:rbeen examined he was put hit htletto he ha : a a s s a a b l e t to to b w la o t i r k e ; h i o ndeed . could n o o n t do 411 b een ,E s i..o!lF. But it was a matter t c s i o ci p •e e: t tt.) . _such work, and not .0 of a 4 to ,:tlsi de :le . When a man complamed to be properly treated for it, ,e ma s t ever rats character. His being 'OO% b e lt g o f• c : r ‘,va: . no justification of his vio t4. 041 1,14 " t eti 'ibe r ~"1 a t the sessions. He added "a 1 ,Cg e u on finding bail, himself in £3O t ki f t: A t ki t tato ck/I Nii lII ' TR ter, onELocK.—Already an agi , ' l to -re Pre -ril ed Hogan has commenced his sentation of Nenagh in the College- THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD YESTERDAY'S ASSIZES. CROWN COURT. (Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN.) His LORDSHIP entered the court at a few minutes past nine TRIAL OF WILLIAM ANDERSON, FOR STAVING STOLEN NOTES IN HIS POSSESSION. This case having been fixed for to-day, the court was, in consequence, crowded at an early hour. Messrs. Baines, Crompton, Henderson, and Adolphus, conducted the prosecution ; and Mr. Wilkins, assisted by Mr. Overend, defended the prisoner. There were four indictments against the prisoner. The charge against him having the notes in Isis possession, the produce of the Preston Guild robbery was first proceeded with. The prisoner, who is 34 years of age, and can read and write in a superior manner, was then placed at the bar. He pleaded not guilty. Mr. BAINES stated the case for the prosecution, and entered into a luminous detail of the principal facts. Most of those, however, our readers are already acquainted with, from the ample reports which have appeared of the examinations in the Police -court; and anything that is new will be found in the evidence itself, which we proceed to give at length. The following witnesses were then called : Thos. Wilson.—Resides at Blackburn, and is manager of Cunliffe, Brooks, and Co.'s bank. Knew Mr. Buck, and paid him £5.934 6s. 2d. on the 6th August, in 13 notes of £lOO, 9 of £5OO, and 10 of £lO each, and £34 6s. 2d. in silver and copder. The £lOO notes were of the Manchester branch of the Bank of England, except one. Keeps a hook, and enters all the notes at the branch bank that pass through their hands, and puts on the corner the private mark of their own bank. There is an endorse ment on the back of the check. The private numbers of the bank were taken ; they were written at the corners of the notes. Produced the Bank of England note-book, in which the notes were entered. The notes were as follow : £lOO, 01564; 01563 for £5O; 00092, £100; 00313,£100; 97474. £lOO ; 95151, £lOO ; 01472, £lOO ; 93166, £lOO ; 99729, £100; 97631,' £lOO ; 97504, £lOO ; 01107, £lOO ; 01040, £lOO. Received some notes from Marquis on the 24th August—Xlooo and two notes of £5OO, which were tw,o of the notes paid on that occasion. The payment was made to Buck on the 17th August. Richard B. Dodgson.—ls .a clerk in Cunliffe's bank. When notes are received, a mark is put on the corner, and an entry is made in the note-book. The note-book produced contains the corresponding entries with those on the back of the check. Anthony Buck deposed to receiving, on the lith Aug., the sum of £5,934 fi um the bank of Cunliffe and Co. Richard Eastwood received from Buck £715, which he paid to Miss Forshaw, and £7OO was afterwards paid to the Craven Bank at Burnley. They were the same notes I had received from Buck. George Stansfield called.—ln August last received £7OO from Mr. Eastwood, in one £5OO and two of £lOO each. The hundreds were 01564,QY. and 01563,QY. There was a £5OO note. Edmund Robinson.—l know Mr. Marquis. He asked me to take a £lOO note to the Craven Bank, to get it changed. I gave it afterwards to Mr. Marquis. John Walker, clerk in the Craven Bank, recollected Robinson coming on the 29th August, and exchanged it. Made an entry at the time. The number of the note was Y,01040. Joseph Pilkington, cotton merchant at Blackburn, re. ceived three notes from Marquiss, in August last, of £lOO each. James Stott, bookkeeper to Messrs. Pilkington, saw Marquiss it. August last paying some money to last wit. ness. It was in three £lOO notes ; they were L W,92086, L W,92895, G Y,00092. Cross-examined by Mr. WzmuNs.—They were not paid in his presence. Mr. Pilkington gave them into his hands. John Marquis.—l live at Acrington, near Blackburn. On the 17th August received some money from Buck. After that made a payment to Cunliffe and Co. of £lOOO at Manchester, and £lOOO to Curl Life of Blackburn; also £lOOO to Jones, Lloyd and Co.—all in £5OO notes. Made a payment to Pilkington. On Sunday morning the 4th counted the notes I had left, and had nine of £100; had £1990 left. Preston Guild commenced on that day, and I went there. Had my pocket book in my breast coat pocket. Was in different places during the day, and went into the White Horse about 'seven o'clock, and staid about an hour; came out and had my book at that time. Went up Church-street, and a ma❑ and woman came up to me ; the man put his arm in mine and said, " Ara you taking a walk," and I said, " I am not going any further." They then ran away, and I lost sight of them. Found my pocket-book was gone. Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—Went to Preston to put the money in the bank, and also to walk in the procession. Dined with •wo gentlemen at the White Horse. They were strangers to me. Did not take any wine or spirit. Had a small glass of brandy, and that was all I had that day. Was quite sober when the man and woman came up. Gave information of the robbery about five minutes after it took place. My coat was buttoned when I came out of the inn. By Mr. BAINES.—It was an ordinary at which I dined. Was at the Knutsford Sessions at a trial concerning the robbery. A note was produced, No. 01472. By Mr. WILKINS.-1-lad said the note was 01,473. It was in consequence of a mistake of the printer of the bills. Pointed it out on the Bth of September. It was not pointed out to me. Mentioned the mistake, before seeing the note, to Graves, the officer, who had not then seen it. By Mr. BAINES.—Got the number of the notes from the clerk at the bank. By the COURT.—The notes were those I got from Buck, I am quite certain. Taylor Jennings.—Was in the Branch Bank before being taken into custody. Entered their service in July 1842, and was in the inspector's office till September, and then went into the miscount office, where t remained two months, and returned to the inspector's office, where I remained till taken into custody. Knows Harriet Bent ley. She lived in Mitchell-place, Ranelagh-street, when 1 first knew her, and afterwards in Elliott-street, and then in Oak-street. Knows a court in Seel-street, and was with her there on one occasion, the beginning of Oc tober I think ; and the prisoner came about a watch that had been stolen, and asked me if 1 had got it, and 1 told him I had, and gave it to him. There was a person with him, and prisoner charged me with taking the watch out of his house, and said the man he had with him was to take me into custody. We then went out, I, and pri soner, and Hai riet Bentley, together with the man who came with the prisoner. Got the watch from Bentley at the prisoner's house, about three days previously, where he had been with her. We were in a parlour, near the door, about half an hour. There was a bed in the room. The watch was lying on a table ; it was a large gold one. After I gave it to the prisoner, he said the man who was with him was charged to take me, and I must go with him. I said I was sorry for what had happened, and would re compense him if he would allow me to go; and I said I would give all I had, which was two sovereigns, which he took, and said he would go to the parties, and make it all right if he could, and I was to meet him at the York Hotel, Williamson-square, in an hour, where I told him what I was. I went with Harriet, and he told me he had made it all right,—that he told the parties lie had knocked me down, and was ashamed to take me. He (prisoner) called for some wine, and we got into conversation, and then left, and went by his request to his house, as he thought he could do some business with me, where he gave us something to drink. He knew at that time what I was, and inquired whether I had any thing to do with notes in the bank. I said I had ; and the same night he told me he bad a £lOO note, which lie wished me to change, and that I must not let any body see it, and if I would do it he would give me £7 10s. Nothing further passed that night. I staid all night. When I went again, which was the next night, he gave me the £lOO note. It was of the Manchester branch. He said if I could change it, and bring him another for it, he would give me the £7 10s. I took it, and changed it by putting it into a parcel, and taking out another for it from the notes in the inspector's office. Put the prisoner's note into the same parcel from which I took the other. Took the note to the prisoner; it was a £lOO, and he gave me £7 10. He said he had seven more ; and, feeling some surprise, I asked him what they were, and he said they were part of the Preston Guild robbery. He gave me two more soon after. They were for £lOO, of the Manchester Branch, and changed them in the same way, and gave them to the prisoner, and he gave me £l5. He then said he would wait awhile before he gave me any more ; and in a week after or more I had another of the same branch for £lOO, which I disposed of in the same way, and gave it to him, getting the £7 10s. Had another soon after, and gave the changed note to prisoner, and then another of the same kind. The last two I received a little before Christ mas, giving the notes to the prisoner, as I had done be fore. Had a shirt pin from the prisoner, :which he gave me in January. It was a gold one, with a small stone in it ; I gave it to Bentley. Cross-examined by Mr. Wmxtrzs.—l came from Lon don, but not a native of that place. Belong to Hertford shire. Was in a merchant's office when I first went to London, in 1841, Barclay Brothers, of Austin-friars, and was with them five or six months, when I got a situation in the Bank of England, and stayed there five months, and in three days after that came to Liverpool. I am a married man, and have been married five or six months. Became acquainted with Miss Bentley in September last, was married in April, and knew Bentley at that time ; was mar ried to Miss Bartlett of London, but did not continue in timate with Bentley. I saw her occasionally sometimes where she was living. I generally met her. She was living at a brothel in Oakes-street, where I saw her on several occasions. Made her presents at different times ; on one occasion £2. Never gave her new dresses or caps. Gave her a cap before marriage. Don't know what money I gave her to buy them—it might be a sove reign. Have given her a sovereign since I was married. Have not been with her on a great many occasions. Saw her the day before I was taken up—l had passed the night with her. Was three nights with her just before that time. Never offered my wife any of Bentley's cast off clothes. Never kept Miss Bentley. Never slept with her a fortnight together. Am in debt ; perhaps £2O would clear me. Have not been in the habit of attending races. Would swear he had never bet on races or prize-fights. Do not practice pugilism. My wife had no knowledge of my acquaintance with Miss Bentley until after we had been married about a fortnight. Might hav e paid Bentley £5O altogether. The first time I went to the prisoner's house was the latter end of September, when I took the watch. The value of it might be £l5 or £2O. She took it out of the house, and I took it from her and put it in my pocket at the bottom of Elliott-street. Had it two or three days before being asked for it, and in the in terval was one night at home, and the other with Miss Bentley. Was taken up on Monday, the 18th of July, in consequence of being in possession of a £l,OOO note which I had given to Mr. Wood, who had lent me £2O, £lO of which I gave to Miss 8., which was after I was mar ried. Told Mr. W. the note was a family affair, and re quested him to get it changed at Barned's bank. He re fused at first, but afterwards consented, and, on theday af ter told Mr. W. 1 could not go to the bank as I was going to the races, and he said such work as that would not do for him. Pretended, when Mr. Wood came to the bank, that he had gone into the bank, and the inspector was not there. Tried to escape from Mr. Wood the same day, or day after. Went into a yard to make my escape, but did not know what I was doing. I sent for the pri soner to Wood's house to get him to lend me £2O to pay Mr. Wood. Told the prisoner the £lOOO note was changed. Wood told the prisoner I had offered him a £lOOO note as security for £2O. Wood told the prisoner. it was stopped at Barnett's. Did not say 1 had received it from the prisoner, and was before Mr. Turner and Mr. Fletcher, and told them it was a family concern, and I was entitled to a fifth of it. The note was at that time stopped. Was called before Mr. Turner to account for the note, but did not mention 'he prisoner's name. Said the note had been received from my brother in America. and that he was lodging in Tower-hill, London. Was taken before Mr. Rushton the day after my apprehension, and gave the same account I had given the day before. Wrote something on a piece of. paper, and gave it to the prisoner to enable him to get me some money. Told Mr. Wood 1 was going to Squire Clegg's. at Allerton, to get the money. He is a farmer, and I thought he might lend it as he is a particular friend of my uncle's. Mr. Clegg keeps his carriage, but I have never seen it. Put my head out of the coach window when I was goinlv to Al lerton with Mr. Wood to look for Squire Clegg's car riage. Drove to the London-road, and said I would wait there for the Squire. Mr. Wood caught me at the rail way station, and I said 1 was waiting there for a friend. Told Mr. Dowling I got the £lOOO note from the prisoner, and that it was the only money transaction I ever had with him, and did not tell him I had known prisoner only six months. Suspected something when the prisoner asked me to change the £lOOO note. He proposed it after I bad been there about a quarter of an hour. Can not swear, but I think Bentley was in the room. I did not express any objection to do it. Had nothing to de pend upon but my salary. Believe the first note was given in October. Never told Mr. Dowling the three first £lOO notes were given in September. Changed the first note the day after getting it, and the others in two or three days after that. No one ever saw the notes in my possession. Got the others about a week after, and I ex changed them in a day or two, and two others soon after that. Had eight £lOO notes; had always said so. Did not recollect telling Mr. Dowling the first note was got on the first night after sleepitig at the prisoner's house. Most of the transactions took place at the prisoner's house; some of them at a public-house—l don't know where. Generally gave the prisoner the notes at his own house. Gave one at a public-house-1 don't know where it was. Examined by Mr. BAINES.—Took the pin from the prisoner for changing two £5O notes. Was taken up on the charge of having a £lOOO note which I got from pri soner. He said he got it from a person who came down from London night before. Said that one man and another saw a person come out of a banking house and get into an omnibus, and that he held his hand on his right side pocket, and that when he got out they followed him, and one of them took the notes out of his pocket. One set off to Li verpool, the other watched the gentleman and saw him go back to the same house, and that when he told them they would not believe him. The other man then came down to Liverpool. Prisoner came to me on the 7th, and said he wanted to meet me, and I saw him at a public-house in Copperas-hill, and he took out a newspaper and shewed me an advertisement about three £lOOO notes, and the night after I went up to his house in Stafford -street, and he gave me a £lOOO note. That was the note about which I was taken up. Harriet Bentley.-4 am a single woman. In the begin ing of last year lived in Mitchell-place, Ranelagh-street, and afterwards went to live in Seel-street. Was ac quainted with Jennings before I went there. I first knew him in August, 1842, and went with him soon after to prisoner's house. Was there on the night when the watch was taken. There was a bed in the room, and Jennings and I were there about half an hour. A watch was lying on the table, and I took it up and showed it to him, and he said he would take it, and if he heard nothing about it during the week, he would publish it. He put it in his waistcoat pocket, and we went away together. Was with him two or three days afterwards, at Seel-street. and two persons came to fetch Jennings. It was the prisoner and a Mr. Lever. Jennings went down stairs to the prisoner, and gave him some gold and a watch. but I did riot hear any thing till we went to the York Hotel, where I saw the prisoner again, and we staid about an hour or more. There was nothing said that I heard. We then went to prisoner's house, in Elliott -street, and remained all night. Prisoner asked Jennings where he worked when we were in Seel• street. and he said he was at the Branch Bank in Hanover-street. Had a breast pin given to me by Jen nings. [Witness here described the pin.] Had seen it in possession of Anderson, who wanted to sell it to Jen.; nings for £2 10s. The pin was pledged at Richardson's, London-road, and I gave the ticket to Greaves, the police officer. 'Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—First met Jen nings, in Itanelagh-street, about eleven or twelve months ago, and we went to a house, and we soon became very intimate. He used to see me nearly every day, and at ways paid me, mostly with a sovereign. He never kept me for a month. He bought me some caps—a good many—fashionable ones. He gave me £lO once, and at another time £5. Cannot say that. he has given me more than £4 besides. We went to the theatre occasionally. Did not know he was married, or I should not have al lowed his visits. Jennings took the watch off the wash stand. After the matter about the watch was present the whole evening, and heard prisoner say something about a note. Have not seen Jennings since he was in prison. Heard what prisoner said when he went away to see the parties about the watch. Have not had any conversation since I came into court. Thomas Lever said.--lirnow the prisoner, and he came for me in August last, and we went to a place in Seel street, and Harriet Bentley came down stairs and spoke to witness and prisoner, who said to her, " Where is that watch ?" " 0 ! George is up stairs and has got it." A man then came down stairs, and she said, " here is Mr. Anderson come about the watch." He had it round his neck and took it off, and delivered it to the prisoner Jen nings; they went out with the prisoner, who gave me a sovereign for my trouble in going with him. George Greaves, a police-constable s produced a pin; also a pawn-ticket for the same. Eliza Silvester.-1 live in Oak-steet, and Harriet Bent ley lived with me. I know Jennings—he went by the name of George. I know the breast-pin. George Richards, a pawnbroker. proved the pledging of the pin on the 29th Dec. by Harriet Bentley. The pin was taken by the constable. The pin was then shown to Harriet Bentley, who said it was the same that Jennings had given to her. Mr. Fletcher, one of the managers of the Branch Bank, was called.—Jennings was a clerk ; he came in July, 1842, and was in the inspector's office, with the exception of a short time he was in the discount office, till he was taken. The notes are first taken by the teller, and he counts the money to see that it agrees with the ticket brought by the customer. He then doubles them up, and puts the name of the party paying it in on the outer note, and the total amount of the notes themselves. They are then put in the teller's drawers, and taken out by the inspector when he comes round. He calls out the numbers with the tel lers, and the amount on the notes to see that they agree with the numbers in the books, and they are then taken to the inspector's office. He separates them into three parcels, first putting down in a book the total amount, and then lays them out in three divisions, for Manches ter. Liverpool, and other branches. They are then put in the inspector's room in bundles, and are entered in three books by the clerks. Jennings was one of those clerks, and had access to those bundles. On reference to the cancel note-book for Nov. 14, there is the following entry :—No. 99727, for £100; in a parcel paid in by Mr. Arbuthnot; Nov. 26th, 97504, for £lOO, paid in to the credit of Captain Broad; Dec. sth, 97474, for £lOO, paid in by the customs ; Dec. 15th, 97631, for £lOO, paid in by Charles Imer, Paulett and Co.; Dec. 17th, 95151, for £lOO, paid in to the credit M. La Barre; Dec. 21st, two notes, 00313, for £lOO, and 01107, for £lOO, paid in by the customs. Mr. BA INES said he would then go through the history of No. 99,727, and called James Hazel, cashkeeper to Hodgson and Riley, who received on the 14th November, £552 17s. 11d., at the Bank of Liverpool, and had four £lOO notes. 1 hey have my name on them. They were Nos. 82,629, 69,317, 81,084, and 81.831. The same day paid to Jones, Mann, and Foster XlO2, G. Barnsley and Son £lB3, and Glad stone, Serjeantson, and Co. £233, and paid away those notes. Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINS.—Kept a book in which I entered the numbers. William Cameron Sillar, clerk to Jones, Mann, and Foster, received on Nov. 24 £lO2 from Hodgson and Riley, which he paid over to Mr. Clarke, the cashkeeper, who refused to receive a £lOO note. George Harkle, clerk in Leyland's bank, on the 15th Nov., gave change to Jones, Mann, and Foster for a £l3O note, No. 12,629, being the first of the notes men tioned by Hazel. Cross-examined by Mr. WiticiNs.—We don't give change except to parties who are known to us. Maurice Williams, clerk of Barnsley and Co.—On the 14th Nov. received from Hodgson and Riley £lBl, on account of Baring Brothers. Roderick M'Kenzie, cashkeeper to Barnes and Co., received £lBO from Barnsley and Co., and paid into the Borough Benk £2,027, which was deposed to as having been received by a clerk in that establishment. The number was 69,317. William Bird Redish, clerk to Gladstone and Co., re ceived on the 14th Nov. £233 Bs. from Hodgson and Riley, and paid it to Ogilvie and Co.. of whom Arbuth not is a partner. George Hopwood, clerk to Arbuthnot and Co., re ceived from Gladstone and Co., Nov. 14, £230 Bs., and paid £llO on the 14th Nov. into the Branch Bank of England, and £l2O on account of the firm. Benjamin Shaw received, on the 14th Nov., £llO on account of Arbuthnot and Co., and folded it up and put it in the letter drawer. Jon. Francis Heath, an inspector of the bank, took the above notes out of the teller's drawer, and from the entry made at the time there appeared No. 99,729, a £lOO note. Had a payment of £l2O the same day, in which there was a £lOO note, No. £81,084. Claudius Vautin, cashier of the Liverpool banking com pany.—The prisoner, on the 18th Nov. last, made a pay ment of £25, and gave a £lOO note, No. 81,831, and re eeived the change. Cross-examined by Mr. WILKINs.—The prisoner wrote his name on the back of the note, and it is my custom to endorse the notes on the back. The prisoner has banked with us for sevon years. Richard Green, clerk in the office of the Liverpool Banking Cowpony, referred to an entry, on the 15th of November, of No. 81831. . Mr. 11 ENDEttsoN said they would now proceed with 97631, substituted for 12168, which they proposed to trace to the prisoner. J. J. Kirby, clerk to Imer, Paulett, and Co., deposed to getting some notes changed at the Borough Bank, in December, one of which was 12168 for £lOO. Francis Nevett. a teller in the Branch Bank, gave change for two £lOO notes on Dec. 15, 1842. One had his mark on it, and 12168 was one of them. Kuew by the entry in the book. Cross-examined.—The cancelled note books shew the entries. %Ir. lleath.—l was on duty on the 15th December at the bank, and received two £lOO notes, Nu. 97631. Did not find 12168. James Todd.—On the 15th Dec. entered two notes, Nos. 97631 and 80714, paid me by Paulett and Co. Claudine Vantin.—The prisoner made a payment on the 17th Dec. of X6O, in a bank note of £lOO. No. 12168. Mr. ADOLPHUS.—The next note we trace will be 97504, substituted for 80348. Wm. Fisher, jun., a clerk in the Bank of Liverpool_. - I remember copying a parcel of £lOO notes on the 25th November. W e put the numbers on them, and entered them in the cash book. No. 80348 is one of them. Win. C. Ashlin, a cashier in the above bank, paid a check of Schroeder and Co. for £450, in four £lOO notes and one £5O. It was paid to their clerk. One of them was 80348. Alfred Pickering, clerk to Schroeder and Co., received the £450 in notes, as stated by the preceding witness, and gave them to Mr. Mahs, who handed them over to Capt. Broad, on the 26th November. Capt. Broad received the notes from Malls in Novem ber, and took them to the Branch Bank. Mr. Agard received them from the last witness, and they were handed over to the inspector, who stated that he had received them. One of them was 97504; 80348 was not one of them. Mr. ADOLPHUS.—We now proceed to show what be came of 80348. Mr. Shaw, of the Branch Bank.—l remember a check comine in on the 28th Nov. from Coventry and Glover for £359 9s. Bd. It was paid in a £5, a £5O, and three £lOO notes; one of the £lOO notes was 83615. George Nicholson, cashier to Steill and Co.—On the 28th Nov. gave a receipt to Coventry and Glover for £359 9s. Bd., and made a payment of £9OO into the bank. Alex. Gillespie made a payment into the Branch Bank. receiving the money from the last witness. Francis Bocquet, teller at the. Branch Bank.—There is an entry of money from Steele and Co. on the 28th Nov. Mr. Heath. teller at the above bank.—Remembered the payment of Steele and Co. It contained some £lOO notes. No. 83615 was not there, but 80348 is one of them. The others were 83616 and 83617. Mr. Inver.—The numbers paid to Coventry and Co., were 83615, 83616. and 83617. John Quayle.-1 am a tailor and draper, and live in Elliott-street, next door to prisoner, who paid some money for work. It was about Dec. He gave me a £lOO note. 1 got it changed by ltighton. Mr. Righton, a grocer in Lime-street.-1 commenced an account with the Union Bank in Di-cember. Got the note from the last witness. The number is 83615. Hugh Makin, cashier in the Union Bank. On the 22d December Righton paid the note into the bank. Mr. BAINES. — The next we shall trace is 95151, which had been abstracted and 07089 substituted. Mr. Long, clerk to Jones, Lloyd and Co., Manchester. —Paid on the 20th Nov. £7o',/ to Mr. Douse. There were two notes of 130 each, one was 07089. The number of the other was 07302. Mr. Douse, a surgeon at Huddersfield, received the notes and paid them to Mr. Stocks. My wife took the numbers. They are a £5OO note, 15459. The first £lOO note was 07089; the second, 07309. Mr. Stocks deposed to receiving the money from Mr. Douse, and paying it to John Booth. John Booth received the same, and handed to M. Le Barre, who paid it into the branch bank in December. It amounted to £2,900 Mr. Hewn took Le Barre's payment. There was a £5OO note, No. 15459. Among the XlOO was No. 07309 ; 07089 was not among them, but 95151 was there. Mr. Quayle.—After the first note the prisoner brought a second, and I got it changed at Mr. Righton's ; but af terwards went and took it from Mr. Righton, and gave it back to the prisoner. Mr. Righton deposed to the same fact as the previous witness. . James Sixsmith, publican, of this town, remember the prisoner coming to my house near the latter end of last year to ask for change fora £lOO note. Obtained it from Mr. Howard, in Cunliffe-street. Sent the boy for it and gave the change to the prisoner, who went away with it. John Debney, clerk to Mr. Howard, proved the changing of the note for Mr. Sixamith. He afterwards took it in a payment of £173 to the Royal Bank. Adam Lowe, of the Royal Bank, proved the payment of the money as stated by Debney. Thos. Scholes received the note for Howard. It was 07089. This was the whole of the evidence for the prosecution. Mr. WILKINS then addressed the jury for the prisoner. He observed. that before he commenced any comment or observation on the details of the case he must remind them what they had to do. They had to consider whether the prisoner then in the dock had been proved to have been guilty of receiving several of the notes stolen from Mr. Marquis, at Preston Guild, on the sth of September. They were not to consider whether the prisoner might have received the produce, but whether he had received the notes that were stolen on that occasion. He thought they must have observed that the evidence of the wit nesses who had been called was, what the poet Milton called " confusion worse confounded." It appeared to him to have very little to do with the case betcre them, He hoped to be able to convince them that what the pro secutor had made out, namely, that certain notes had been nt off, for which the stolen notes had been substituted, Niiig:Whatainiagvulgittaiikutia witgtiLifynr, v as not enough that the indignation of the jury should be excited by an allusion to it on the part of the prosecution, Lut his learned friend had said be should be able to prove it, and he bad failed to do so, for one witness bad told them that the house in Stafford-street was not a brothel. It was not his duty to uphold the conduct of any man en. 'gaged in such a calling, and he thought that if the priso ner had any feeling about him it would be sufficient to make him ashamed of the course of life which he had pur sued. There was a great deal of humbug abroad on that subject, and there were a great many gentlemen, and Chris tians, too, who would treat the conduct of such men with loathing, but who have yet condescended to indulge in those places which the prisoner was charged with keeping. One thing was certain : it was not the poor man, but it was emong men of money and rank where they would find the parties who supported institutions of that character. They were not there to consider as to his moral character, but whether he was guilty of the charge laid against him in the indictment. He contended that Jennings was not corroborated in any single point affecting the guilt of the prisoner; and unless that were the case, his testimony under such circumstances amounted to nothing. He would ask them whether there had ever stood within the bar a man so base, and so divested of everything that could dignify and ennoble the human character, as that thing which had been in the box that day ? He had taken pains with his external habit, but had there been such a wretch as he ever introduced into a witness-box ? Why, when he came to Liverpool he was a thief; and be has not been in Liverpool two months before he goes with a girl and steals a watch, and the fellow was coward enough to try to fix it on the poor girl: the wretch, in order to screen himself, said it was the poor girl who had done it. He then alluded to what he conceived was sufficient to upset the whole of Jennings' story—namely, that be had stated it was either the end of September or beginning of October when the note transaction commenced. He got from him the time when they took place, and, giving him the greatest possible latitude, all the notes except two, according to the evidence of the other witnesses, must have gone out of the bank in the month of October. He finds he is in the strong arm of the law, and that it is ne cessary to adopt some means for his deliverance. Why, what did Mr. Wood do? He treated him as a felon ; and he thought if they gave to reason and truth that share which they ought to occupy in the case, they could never believe the story which Jennings had told them that day. The learned gentleman then alluded to his conduct to his wife, for at the time he was married he was actually pick ing up sn intimacy with Harriet Bentley, who bad that day been before them in the box, and who had stated that, bad she known he was married, even she, degraded as she was, would not have admitted him into her com pany. After some further remarks on other parts of the evidence, he concluded by calling on them to consider the case with all that caution and deliberation :which its im portance demanded. If they wished to see the bearing of one who was guilty and one who was not, they must con trast the bearing of the prisoner with that of Jennings. The prisoner courted inquiry—Jennings fled from it ; the prisoner never told a lie from beginning to end—Jennings never told the truth. He thought the situation of the pri soner such as ought to make him more strenuous in his behalf, and he considered it his duty to lay the case before them in a calm and dispassionate light, and he asked them to acquit him because the principal evidence against the prisoner was that of one of the most vile and degraded individuals that had ever come into the dock. The Learned JUDGE then went carefully over the evi dence to the jury, remarking that it depended principally on the credit they could attach to the witness Jennings, who presented himself under circumstances which did not entitle him to credit unless the other circumstances satis fied them that be was borne out in what he said. And if they found him upon the evidence to be of such a charac ter, it would be their duty to discredit him provided his evidence was not corroborated by other witnesses. The question they had to decide, as regarded the prisoner, was whether the prisoner received, or had in his possession, certain notes being the produce of the Preston Guild rob bery, knowing them to have been stolen. After the jury had consulted for a short time, one of them wished to know from his lordship the particular point they had to consider. The JUDGE.—Notes are given (if you believe the testi mony of Jennings) by the prisoner to him for the purpose of being changed. He changes them, and be says, those notes go to the prisoner. Now, four notes which he changed for four others are found in the hands of the prisoner at the bar. The question was, whether the pri soner received the Preston Guild notes, and according to Jennings he did receive them. Then it is for you to say whether Jennings speaks the truth. The jury retired, and after being absent about an hour, returned with a verdict of guilty against the prisoner. Mr. ADOLPHUS said, the other indictments would not be proceeded with. His LORDSHIP observed that the prisoner had been convicted of one of the worst of crimes—and one that was fraught with the most dangerous consequences to society ; and whatever might have been the moral delinquency of Jennings, he (the prisoner) had taken the advantage of the charge of felony which might have been proved against him to serve his own wicked purposes. The sentence of the Court was, that he be transported for fourteen years. Tue Court rose at half-past eight. NISI PRIUS COURT. Mr. Justice CRESSWELL took his seat at nine o'clock. SMETHHURST V. TAYLOR AND ANOTHER This was an action, before a special jury, for goods sold and delivered on an account stated. The defendant pleaded not liable. Mr. Martin and Mr. Segar appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Knowles, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Atherton for the defendants. Mr. MARTIN stated the case. The plaintiff, Richarr', Smethhurst, is a manufacturer, carrying on business at Chorley, about twenty miles from Manchester. The de fendants, John Taylor and William Potter, ate in a large way of business, in r,iverpool, who send a large quantity of goods to India and China, and this action was brought to recover a sum of £2400, alleged to be due by them to the plaintiff, arising out of a sale of goods in March, 1841. The parties who immediately bought these goods were persons carrying ;on business in Manchester, under the the firm of Saml. K n i g ht an d C o . Th el h a d been carry ing on business for some time as commission agents, and from the year 1838 till 1841 they had bought goods for the defendants to the extent of £lOO,OOO. They were uni versally known as being the agents of Taylor, Potter and Co. As to themselves, one of them, at least, had been a bankrupt, and they were a firm who never could and never expected to receive credit for themselves. They never, to any extent, sold goods on their own account. In March, 1841, the plaintiff had in hands a very bilge quantity of shirtings, an article very largely exported from this country to China and the East Indies. He employed a person named Pilkington to sell goods for him, and, accordingly, in March, be called upon Messrs. Knight and asked them if they were purchasing goods for Messrs. Taylor, Potter and Co. ; he told them at the same time that if they were disposed to buy the plaintiff would take a bill for 3 or 6 months. The ordinary way of business was to pay cash in 1841, or a bill fora month. Messrs. Knight said they were not at present in the market for Messrs. Taylor, Potter, and Co., but when they were they would let them know. Accordingly, on the 27th Mach, Mr. James Knight came to Mr. Pilkington, told him Taylor, Potter and Co. were in the market, and requested that samples should be sent to them. He (Mr. K.) said he was about to go to Liverpool, and he would take the samples with him. Five pieces of each description of article were sent to M r. Knight as samples, and when Mr. Pilkington called on him next day he stated th tbe had taken the samples to Li verpool, shown them to defendants, who were willing to give I2s. a piece for one kind, and 12s. 6d. for another. After some time the plaintiff was induced to take the prices offered, but in order to ascertain properly that he was dealing with the defendants he sent down his nephew, who, with Mr. Pilkington, waited upon Mr. Knight. Mr. Pilkington said, " Ytn are buying these goods for Taylor. Potter, and Co." " Yes," was the reply, " and more than that, we are buying them to go to China in a ship called the John Bibby, and you look at Myers's Gazelle. you will see that the vessel is going to sail in a few days." They then went to the news-room, and finding the vessel was entered as stated, the nephew returned home, told what he had ascertained, and the plaintiff determined to conclude the bargain. He wrote to the effect on the 50th March to Mr. Pilkington. Accordingly, the goods were sent to Lees and Jenkinson, the packers ; they were af terwards sent down to Liverpool, shipped in the John Bibby, and went to China. This being the state of the case, he (the learned counsel) understood the defence to the action would be that when young Smethurst went to Mr. Knight's office, after he had learned that the goods were for Messrs. Taylor, Potter and Co., he said to Mr. Knight, " To whom are we to make out the invoice ? Are we to make it out to Taylor, Potter and Co. ?" Mr. Knight said, " No, when goods are sold per six months bill, the bills are not made out to them but to us." Accordingly, the invoice was made out to Mr. Knight. Mr. Martin continued by saying that he wou:d prove, from letters found in the possession of Messrs. Knight, who had since become bankrupt, that he had autho rity to buy for the defendants. He then read a letter signed W. P. Livingston, which, he said, was written by authority of the defendants • and added, that when the defendants were applied to they said that Messrs. Knight had had a general althority to buy for them up to January, but not since. It would appear, that in this instance the invoice was made out to Knight and Co., but he submitted that the goods were sold to the authorised agent of Taylor, Potter, and Co., who had full authority to buy them. After reading letters written by W. P. Livingston and other persons on behalf of the firm, relating to the pur chase of goods, the learned counsel contended that these obviously related to the 6,000 pieces of shirting purchased from the plaintiff, and nothing else. He would prove to the jury that every parcel of these goods went to China by the John Bibby, which sailed some days later than was originally intended. There was a person named Nixon, at Manchester, who sold goods for other persons, the same as Mr. Pilkington, and he asked Messrs. Knight who their principals were. They replied that Messrs. Taylor, Potter, and Co. were. He sold them goods to the amount of £20,000, and some of the invoices were made out to Taylor, Potter, and Co., some to Knight and Co., but the goods were all sent down, without destination, to Taylor, Potter, and Co. The mode in which Taylor, Potter, and Co. did business at first was for cash, but about the end of the year 1838 they commenced signing bills to get money to discount and pay for the goods ; and the mode in which Knight and Co. carried the money to pay for the goods was by bills signed by Taylor, Potter, and Co. These were discounted by the bank of Daintr:,,, Ryle, and Co., at Manchester, and in no case did Taylor. Potter, anti Co. interfere. The delivery of the goods was completed on the 2d of April, and by the terms of the purchase agreed upon the money was to be paid in four teen days, and it became due on the 16th. On that day application was made by Mr. Pilkington to Mr. James Knight, who said, " 1 am sorry to disappoint you, but I have not done mx discAprit c irulAy t m asp r z . sr . t a counted." At the latter end of April Mr. Pilkington obtained £1,500 in bills on account of the shirting, arid so things continued until the beginning of May, wh.n the concern of Knight and Co. closed. After that, Messrs. Taylor, Potter, arid Co. were applied to fur payment for the goods, and the statement made by Mr. Taylor was, that they had not given authority to Knight and Co. to purchase goods for them since the January preceding. He (the learned counsel) undertook to satisfy the jury that the goods were sold to Taylor, Potter, and Co. through Messrs. Knight. 2,000 of the pieces came to the house of Taylor, Potter, and Co. ; but there was a firm, Living ston, Gilliott, and Co., who carried on business under the same roof with defendants, and the remainder of the goods were shipped on board the John Bibby, with the name of Livingston, Gilliott, and Co. on them, but how that name got there he could not tell, as, in looking over the bank rupt's book, it was not found that there were any dealings between the parties. Mr. MARTIN then called a number of witnesses to prove the sale of the goods, the general course of busi ness, and the agency of Messrs. Knight. The total cost of the goods was stated to be £3,975, of which £1,500 had been paid. leaving a balance of 4;2,475, for which sum the action was brought. Mr. KNOWLES, for the defendants, said, there were two questions for the jury —whether Messrs. Knight and Co. had authority to bind the defendants in the matter, and supposing that they had, had credit been given to them or to Messrs. Taylor, Potter, and Co.? He said there was no proposition of law more distinct than this, that if a party sells goods to an agent, knowing that he is dealing for a principal, and the principal's name be known to him, and the seller gives credit to the agent, the principal can never be made liable, whatever becomes of the agent. The learned counsel then contended, at some length, that the invoice was the only proof of the party debited, and concluded by expressing an opinion that his learned friend (Mr. Martin) had failed to make out the two propositions which would entitle him to a verdict. Mr. Justice CRESSWELL said, there were two questions for the jury to decide—the first was, whether the goods weresold ponottltieer and Co.credit of f Knight ifiy (th ight t a le ncl Co.,e j or on s t h h o e u c l r d b credit of Taylor, of opinion that Smet hurst knew that they were for Taylor, Potter, and Co., and be consented to give Knight and Co. credit, he could not after that claim against Taylor, Potter, and Co. But if they were of opinion that the credit was not given to Knight and Co., but to Taylor, Potter, and Co., then would come another question— whether Knight and Co. had authority to pledge Taylor, Potter, and Co.'s credit. If the jury were of opinion in the affirmative that they were sold to Taylor, Potter, and Co. and Knight and Co. had authority to pledge their credit, then they (the jury) must find the verdict for the plaintiff, and if otherwise, their verdict would be for the defendants. If for the plaintiff, it would be for £2475. The jury, after half an hour's deliberation, found for the defendants. BIRCH V. WOOD AND ANOTHER. This was an action to recover damages for the infringe ment of a patent. The plaintiff (for whom Mr. Martin, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Webster appeared as counsel) was Thomas Birch. The defendants (for whom Mr. Knowles and Mr. Townsend appeared) were Charles and Richard Wood. Mr. MARTIN stated the case. The plaintiff was a man now in very great poverty, and endeavoured to get a live lihood by acting as an assistant to an engineer in Salford. He was a very ingenious man. and in the early part of his life devoted a good deal of his time to the improvement of machines, rather than to pecuniary matters. He was formerly in partnership with two gentlemen of the name of Shorrocks, manufacturers of carding and spinning ma chines, and whilst in partnership with them be made the invention in question, a patent was granted in 1837, and it was for an infringement of the patent that the present ac tion was brought. In 1830 the partnership between the plaintiff and the Messrs. Shorrocks was dissolved. Plain tiff sold his interest in the concern for £425, to be paid in promissory notes, and went to Ireland, where some tempting offer was held out to him. He remained in Ire land till he lost all his money, came over to Manchester about seven months since, and had remained there ever since. The patent was for an addition to the old machine comesf or carding, in whereby f r t o h m e saebedrosa,da was sn gotot s, and dirt much which more effectually, in less time, and did a great deal more work. When the plaintiff came back from Ireland he found that his patent was in very general use in the manufacturing districts. He applied to many persons, all of whom agreed to give him something for the use of the patent, with the exception of the defendants, who used it to about sixty machines. Mr. KNOWLES, for the defendants, said that at the time the partnership was formed the Messrs. Shorrocks were monied men, and it was of great importance to have a mechanical genius in manufacturing concerns, and it frequently happened that such a person was taken into partnership, on the understanding that the result of his inventive genius was to go to the benefit of the partner ship. This, he alleged, was the case in the present in stance; the partnership was at the expense of model• and experiments, and the machine. were all made on account of t'-,e co , icern. He contended, that by the deed pro viding for the dissolution of partnership, phintiff assi , 2ned over all right and interest in the ennrt rn, and, therefore, that the patent right pas.sed to the Messrs. Shorrocks, who became hankrut,ts in 1839. Under the direction I )isl"rdshii , . a verdict was re turnedof 6- th , plaintiff. Damages, 40q. The Court rose at a quArter to six o'clock. CORRESPOADENCE. THE BISHOPS AND THE TRACTS. TO THE EDITOR OF THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD. SIR,—Not having seen in your paver any notice of the Bishop of Ossory's primary charge, it occurred to me that a few words on the main points art forth in it night not prove unwelcome either to your readers or yOUrseit : there are many, doubtless, among the former, who, though not likely to procure or peruse the charge for themselves, would be glad of the opportunity of seeing an outline of its contents. The well-known power and perspicuity of the writer's mind, his sound judgment and habitual caution, the weight of his personal character and the dignity of his office, all combine, together with the topics on which he treats, to lend a more than ordinary interest to this charee, recently published. The tracts on " Reserve" and the notorious No. xc. are especially dealt with : while a valuable sketch of the rise, progress, and tendency of the entire move ment is faithfully and succinctly presented with all the solemn authority that belongs to such an address. A line in your " Notices to Cori espondents" will de termine whether you may hear again from, Sir, Yours, &c., Liverpool, August 27, 1843. A. M. [We have heard sufficient of this admirable charge to induce us to wish most earnestly to present its principal features to our readers ; and we LeretOre receive with joy our correspondent's communication, and shall, insert with pleasure his future favours.] COMMITMENTS TO THE SESSIONS.—On Thursday a boy named James M`Ginn was committed for trial for stealing a shirt, value 2s. 6d., nut of the sale shop of Mr. Thomas Higginson, pawnbroker, Park-lane. He ran off with the article, but dropped it on heir; observed in the street, and pursued.—On Friday, Patrick BrNan, a boy who had come out of jail the previous day, was committed for stealing a pair of boots, value £1 55., from a shop in Dale-street. Also, a woman, named Cathetine O'Neill, (who had an infant in her arms.) was committed for trial for stealing a pair of boots from the shop of Mr. Ileyes, pawnbroker, where she bad gone to price them. FEATHER-DRESSING MACHINE.—An entirely novel, and certainly unique, contrivance for restoring old and dressing new feathers has recently been introduced into this town, by Messrs. Lee and Co. We had the pleasure of seeing it in operation a few days since. It consists of a large cylinder, in the interior of which are several arms, which work not unlike the devil :1i a cotton factory, tear ing the feathers asunder, and keeping them in continual motion, while the heat emitted from a large coke fire under the cylinder, which is constantly revolving, com pletely disinfects and expands them far beyond their original bulk.—See Advertisement. POLICE CHARGES OF DRUNK-AND-DISORDERLY.— We have frequently had occasion to remark that the mass of the police-officers, in preferring a charge of " disor derly" conduct against any individual, appear to deem it necessary to prefix, on almost all occasions, the little monosyllable " drunk," on the supposition, apparently, that it would scarcely be credited that a man would be violent unless he were inebriated. The constant recur rence of the double charge has on many occasions—when parties quite as respectable as police-officers have utterly denied the drunken portion of it at least—often brought ourselves and others to suspect that .the practice is a ra ther sharp one; and we had an instance at the police court yesterday which confirms a very general opinion that (as has been remarked in one of the newspapers) the words are " stereotyped" on a policeman's tongue. A cltrl, to an attorney was brought up aed charged by In spector Brown with having been " drunk and disorderly," and the witness added that he had consequently committed him to Rose-hill Bridewell. The defendant (who was perfectly sober) denied that he was any more drunk than at that moment, and appealed to the Bride well. keeper, Edward Keenan, whether lie was or not. Keenan said that he was not drunk when brought there. Mr. Rushton asked the keeper why then he had entered him in the book as drunk as well as disorderly. The witness said that he had before refused to receive a charge of drunkenness and disorder from ati inspector, the person given in charge ; not being, in his opinion, drunk, and that he was, in consequence of such refusal, brought be fore the police committee, and told that he must receive and write down the charge, whatever it was, from his su perior officer. Mr. Rushton said that no bridewell keeper ought to do so unless he himself saw that the man was obviously drunk. If such a charge was given by an inspector as that under consideration, he ought to write in his book, "charged by with being drunk and dis orderly ; but Ido not believe hie , to be drunk." The de fendant in this case was then discharged. THE WORKHOUSE.—We direct at enCort to a report in our paper of this day of a case of aggravated assault on the governor and another officer of our Workhouse, into which the tender mercies of the new poor-law have at length found their way, and though not yet to their full extent, in a manner sufficiently to show that that heart less enactment never can be brought into full play in the town of Liverpool, wherever else it may be tolerated. Here we have an instance of a pauper, refractory and out rageous we admit, but nevertheless a human being in des titution, labouring under disease, and consequently enti tled to some modicum of the humanities of our common and sinful nature. He had been confined in gaol for re ! f.llo9.rEg wit (Hipp!, AtarturAgu, 491k4g of livitig; returned to the workhouse. He stated at once that he wts " past labour," from the disease that hung upon him, and that two surgeons out of doors had so affirmed. But no examination whatever of his person was made; he was pronounced fit for work ; and the new governor (for the administration of the new poor law) on hearing of his return, exclaimed (by his own account) " What ! the notorious Smith come back again ! send him to break stones." A hammer was then put into the man's hands, and he was told that he, would be punished if he did not work. Being, as must be admired, a despe rate character, and exasperated at such treatment, he struck the officer, and afterwards the governor, with the dangerous weapon, and was proceeded against for a rour derouz assault, though it appears, from the evidence of the surgeon of the gaol, that the blocs were not dangerous to life, and alleged, that he in reality was still labouring under disease which would be aggravated by the work he was ordered to commence. His being sent to break stones was certainly no palliation for so savage an assault; but why should a man who had undergone punishment for a former offence, and had legally purged himself of it by umlergoing it, be received and treated on his return to the house as a criminal? Why was he not examined as to his infirmity, and treated accordingly ? We can devine no reply that can be made, but that the new poor law contemplates poverty as a crime, and adjudges all who seek relief under it to a measure of irksome and degrading labour, which shall compel them to one or other of the alternatives—begging, stealing, or, as in this instance, to desperate revenge. As the magistrate properly remarked, character, in a case of want and illness, ought not to be taken into consideration. If he and we (who accord with him on this point) be not mistaken in our position, the case is one which, we think, the Poor-law Commissioners are bound thoroughly to investigate, for the benefit of the public. Of the general working of the poor-law act so far, in this town, we have only to say that it is already driving the poor wholesale from the establishment. Al though there is little or no improvement in the market for employment, the inmates are already reduced by - about 400 ; and if the system be persisted in, there will be no need for the erection of the contemplated build ings on a larger scale. So stringent are the rules, that in a short time it will be deserted by all but the utterly helpless; and the town, inundated by persons struggling in desperation for a living, will be more grievously burthened for the prosecution of criminals than for the support of paupers. THE CURRANT CROPS.—Advices from Cephalonia, Zante, Ithaca, and Patras reach down to the sth of Au gust. The crops are likely to be under the usual average from the dryness of the season. The collectorship of the customs of Bristol, vacant by the superannuation of Thomas Morris, Esq., has been conferred on the late assistant-secretary to the Board of Customs, John Ker, Esq. W“.l. OF COL. FAWCETT.—The will of this gentleman has just been proved in Doctors' Commons'. The pro perty is sworn under £3OOO. The following remarkable sentence occurs :—" In the event of the death of myself and my said wife at the same period of time, from acci dent or unforseen causes," &c. THE QUEEN'S SPEECH AND REPEAL.—III pursuance of a regular summons, a cabinet council was held on Sa turday. at Mr. O'Connell's non-official residence in Mer rion•square, for the purpose of taking into consideration such paragraphs of the Royal speech as had reference to the repeal sedition at present organized in Ireland, and to found a report thereon. DEATH FROM CUTTING A CORN.—Died, o❑ the 17th instant, aged 64, Mr. Richard Herbert, of Beaconsfield. About ten weeks since deceased cut a corn on his foot till it bled ; he neglected it, and iuflamation ensued. This confined him to his bed for about six weeks, when a fatal termination took place from mortification.—Aylesbury News. --- REPEAL INTIMIDATION. — The Newry Telegraqh states that many Protestants in the neighbourhood of Keady, in the county of Armagh, are joining the repeal ranks through fear, in consequence of the organization of the repealers, and their method of recognition by cards is sued from Dublin ; but, above all, in the absence of Military to protect the loyal and right-hearted. SYDNEY SHIPPING. —The number of vessels arrived at Sydney, New South Wales, from the Ist of January to the 31st of March, this year, amounted to 119, whose united burdens made 26,813 tons, by which 1,615 passen gers had arrived. The departures during the same period w eld. e 2 r 3 e t2o , .1 2 2 1 8 , v B3 e s 3 s el tons, s , tle a a n g d g r e t h g a e t e burdens o o ff passengerswhich am o u w. n a t- g Two young Englishmen, . driven by want to commit a highway robbery near Salbris, France, were tried, on the 22nd, at Blois. The jury, taking . into consideration their youth and repentance, and the circumstances under which c o x t t h e e li r: ed fifteen i t as months. m ue h t p: t a r n a d t t d h . e as possible ; and the Court sentenced the eldest to only two y th e ear im p ris onment, crimp:pr ws p e e n r i s o• m - _ ~,. ---`~—`~v~.,7 b si ) 4 l lei o.ot