The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-04-13 00:00:00

SOUTH LANCASHIRE SPRING ASSIZES NISI PRIUS COURT.-THURSDAY Mr. Baron Rolfe took his seat on the bench at nine o'clock this morning. BRINDLE WILL CAUSI - MIDDLETON AND OTHERS V SHERBURNE Mr. CRESSWELL, shortly after his lordship had taken his seat o n th e b enc h , handed up to him a copy of that morn ing's Liverpool Mail, and said, " I beg to call your lord ship's: Attention to an article in that paper." The article in question was a lead e r con t a i n i ng some observations on the special jury case fixed for trial that morning, and seemed to have caused no ordinary degree of excitement amongst the gentlemen of the bar, especially those retained on the side of the defendant. Mr. Baron golfe read the article, or a por tion thereof, and then returned the paper to Mr. Cresswell. The learned gentleman remarked, on receiving it, " I think this is a case for the Attorney-General, my lord." This special jury case was appointed to come on this morn -11,1g: The f o ll ow i n gentlemen composed the jury :Johii Swire, Liverpool, merchant; Robert 'Wynne, Liverpool, merchant ; John Wilson, Toxteth-park, merchant ; James Jackson, Liverpool, merchant; William Niacin, Liverpool, merchant; Samuel Dutton, Liverpool, merchant; John Caton, Toxteth-park, merchant ; Atkinson Wilkin, Liver pool, merchant ; John Hamilton, Toxteth-park, merchant ; Falter Marten, Liverpool, merchant; Francis Jacques, Li verpool, merchant; and Charles R. Simpson, Liverpool, merchant. The counsel for the plaintiffs were Sir William Follett, Mr. Dundas, Mr. Crompton, and Mr. Cowling; for the de fendant, M r . C resswe ll, M r . Watson, and Mr. Murphy. A long consultation took place, after the jury were sworn, between the counsel on both sides, for the purpose, most probably, of trying whether some accommodation could not be effected. This having failed, Mr. COWLING opened the pleadings. In this case, John Francis Middleton, and his wife Alicia Maria, and Thomas Eastwood, and his wife Catherine, were the plaintiffs, and the defendant was Mr. Thomas Sherburne. Tile case came down here by writ of inquiry from the equity side of the Court of Chancery, to ascertain whether William Heatley, the testator, who was seized of certain freehold lands in this county, did, in February, 1829, by a written paper purport ing to be his will, devise those lands to certain persons, and whether by a second written paper, purporting to be a codi cil, and dated the 12th of August, 1835, be devised his lands ; and whether by a third written paper, dated the 2d of January, 1836, purporting to be a codicil to his will, he de vised his lands ; and the first question to be determined was, whether the testator did really devise those lands ; secondly, whether by the paper written purporting to be his will, he did devise them ; thirdly, and fourthly, whether by either of the papers purporting to be codicils to his will he devised them. Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT requested that his lordship would direct all the witnesses iu the case to-leave the court. This Was accordingly done, and a great number of persons rose and *went out. Mr. CriusswEer, then proceeded to open the case for the defendant. He . said that he had the honour to appear in this case as counsel for the Rev. Thomas Sherburne, who, though the defendant in this issue, yet had the burthen of proof cast on him. He bad to establish that the late Wm. Heatley, being of competent understanding, and exercising a free will, made a last will and testament, by which he de vised certain lands. The jury would perceive at once that this was a question of very great importance to all members of the community, because it was an inquiry as to how far the right of every man in this country to deal with his pro perty after death should be interfered with or not. The plaintiff Mr. Middleton, and the plaintiff Mr. East woo d, married two nieces of the late Mr. Heatley, and he by his will and codicils left to his two nieces property worth about £40,000, and to Mr. Sherburne his real property, worth about £10,000; and because Mr. Heatley thought fit so to deal with his property, the husbands of his nieces had now called in question his competency and free agency in making the will. It would therefore be necessary, in order entirely to clear Mr. Sherburne's character from any supposed mal practice, to vindicate his reputation, and not to leave on it the slightest stain, to refute all those calumnious reports which bad been so industriously circulated, some of which had been circulated by Mr. Eastwood himself, as would be proved in evidence. He (the learned counsel) should call on the jury to pay particular attention whilst he traced the personal history of the late Mr. Heatlev from the earliest pe riod to which the memory of his friends went back, down to the period of his death. By so doing he felt the utmost con fidence that he should prove the testator to have been a man not only of competent, but of more than competent under standing. He should also prove him to have been a gentleman of excellent feeling, of good disposition, and of generous heart, but at the same time firm of purpose, choosing to judge for himself, and to act according to the dictates of his own judg ment ; and he should show ample reason why the testator should think fit to judge for himself, and if any other were wanted than that desire to deal with his own according to his individual judgment, it would be found in the conduct of those very parties who now sought to call in question his judgment and the exercise of it. Mr. Heatley died in the summer of 1840, at the age of 75 years, having during that long life bought and sold and managed his property as he thought fit—having mortgaged, having transacted business of every kind ; and he descended to the grave in 1840, no one of his acts having ever been called in question, up to that period, on account of his want of judgment; and now, after such a life thus spent, so occupied with business of every description—aye, and during the last three or four years of it in company with Mr. and Mrs. Eastwood—the plaintiffs brought against him a charge of being a drivelling, half-witted, priest-ridden man, labouring under insane delu sions, and making a will, not from his own judgment, but under the duresse and control of others. The testator, Mr. Heatley, was the son of Mr. James Heatley, who was for many years the land steward of Lady Stourton. By care, prudence, and some fortunate speculations in land, for which his situation as steward gave him good opportunities of effect ing, the father amassed, for him, a considerable property. His son was sent to school in this country for a time, and after wards to a college at Douay, to finish his education there; and on looking through tne different imputations cast on the testator,,or rather the different stories by which it was sup posed his competency was affected, they found that he was not correct in his orthography ; so because a gentleman born in the last century, and educated in a foreign country, did not spell English words correctly, lie was to be pronounced incompetent to make a will. Having returned from Douay, Mr, Wm. Ileatley entered the Lancashire Fencibles in 1835, and served in the regiment, holding the situation of captain, being nea r to in England and sometimes in Ireland, down 18oty in th t e o the ti me o f its being disbanded, in 1803 or year 1798. meantim e his father had died; this was in the chased th e Before hi s death M r. J ames H eat l ey h a d pur of which ePr.OPerty called Brindle. That vv: , s the property death. H e I :„ . ei nained in possession up to the period of his ato an d two 'L d ‘ a Widow, who had a jointure on the property, aughters. One of the latter died unmarried, timeand tlaie other married a Mr. Taylor, an attorney, and some 1808, leav7PutY clerk of the peace. Mr. Taylor died in Perty was 1g a widow and three daughters, when the pro- Mr. Hartley divided equally between the three children, and will. A Mr. uais appointed one of the executors under the executor. At Stoner, a nephew of Mr. Taylor, was another this time the testator and his mother lived at a place called Barton Lodge,not far from Brindle , an d three daughter s o f Mr. Taylor taken h o me with him. They were after w ards. were sent to school ; but from time to time passed their vacations at the house of Mr. Heatley. Things went on in this way until about 1817, when the young ladies were brought home from school. But the meantime, Heatley, h aving re sided at Bartonecome possessed of his father's property, bad aaarton Lodge, because the house at B rindle was a one. The testator, however, thought proper to build a Clew he took l ew One at Brindle; an d that he (Mr. Cresswell) should show great pleasure in this, and superintended the works in their progress. The house erected, together with i ts c onservatories, &c was erected at an expense of from £lB,OOO to X 20,000. "It might be well that at this stage he (the learned counsel) should show the extent of the property devised by Mr. James Heatley to his son William, because he could not help thinking that a great deal of the imputa tion cast on Mr. Sherburne had arisen from some false sup- Position as to the extent of the property which Mr. Heatley had acquired from his father. In consequence of the haste with which this case had been brought to trial, they had been discovering from day to day fresh papers , almost down to the hour at which he (the learned caunsel) was speak ing; and they had lately discovered an account of the pro perty of the father, which was given by his then steward, Mr, Teeby, This account showed what the property of Mr. James H ea tt ee was, and what would be the proper return for him to make to the income tax. The total rental was set dow n ; the payments that every tenant had to make to him.; there was also put the interest of money paid to Mr. Ileatley, and there were traces elsewhere that there were certai n promissory notes in his hands which would make £27. The profits arising from your commission in the amounting to £l6B was entered • and the whole incotne was made out to be £2176. " The yearly value of Your own estate in your own hands, £3O, and one-fourth added," because, probably, it was thought that the estate might have let for so much more, making £37 10s. Then, on the other hand, were put down all the out-goings, amongst others, his mother's jointure, amounting to £867, leaving a clear income of £1647 3s. 6d., which was given in £1650, on which the steward observed—" You will have to pay £165, or 10 per cent." This return showed that the out-goings consisted of a number of rents ; for a good deal of the pro perty which the testator's father left to his son consisted of leasehold estates, which would necessarily decrease in value as the lives fell out, and ultimately there would he an end of the leasehold estate which lie had obtained. And there was here a little trace of the spirit which Mr. Heatley showed tbroughoughout life—a spirit of kindness, generosity, and charity—for there was set down in the return, " yearly gra tuities to the poor, £100." He (Mr. Cresswell) happened to know an eminent merchant in London, certainly not under any priestly dominion, who laid by for the same purpose COO a week. So that at this period Mr. James Heatley was in the possession of £1650 a year. Such was the amount of property received by the testator from his father—not a property descending from remote ancestors—not a property as connected with which there might he supposed to be any feelings of family pride, but a property made in his vocation of land steward, for some successful anticipators of the rise or fall of land in the market at the time. The testator then hav ing received this property in this state, thought fit, as some men not very young , but young enough to have anticipations of pleasure, frequently did, to build the house at Brindle, before mentioned. Whether that cramped his means, and he thought he would try his father's art of speculation, he (the learned counsel) did not know ; but in 1820 he sold a con siderable portion of landed property to Mr. Brockholes, and a most excellent bargain he made. The property consisted of 1400 acres, held on lease under the Duchy of Lancaster. The lease had been renewed from time to time without in crease, and it seemed that Mr. Brockholes had purchased under the impression that he would be allowed to renew on light terms. For that sale the testator received £58,000. The b arga i n t u rned out a bad one for. Mr. Brockholes, for This When the lease ran out be had to renew on o f n or b e a s t i lterms. was no great proof of want of judgment,. genre, on the part of Mr. Heatley.inthe management e r i n o t property. H e (the learned counsel) would now mention the Circumstances under which the testator became acquainted and intimate with Mr. Sherburne. While Mr. Heatley was living . at Barton Lodge, in 1808, the Rev. Mr. Sht. erbu The lne Went to reside at Blackburn, as an officiating pries in that name of Mr. Sherburne's mother wa s Irving, and the chil dren of Mr. and Mrs. Irving were then living neigh bourhood. The father died, and the widow afterwards mar ried a person named Swarbrick, the butler of Mr. He b at r l o e a y d . He became the patron of the children, and sent them . to receive their education. One of the a brothers, resyning the name of Irving, became a priest, and was sent to otti v c e la u t p e at St. Andrews, at Valladolid. The defendant also g mother's name, and went to Blackburn. In the caonrse of the year 1808 the testator went to reside at Brindle Lodge, six miles from Blackburn, and there commenced a most intimate friendship with the defendant, which continued down to the period of Mr. Heatley's death. In 1813 Mr. Sher burne remo ve d from Blackburn to a place called the Willows, 13 miles from Brindle Lodge, and though the esteem and friendship continued unabated, the intercourse was less frequent than it had been before. Things remained in this state when the Misses Taylor, who were now Mrs. Eastwood and Mrs. Mid . dleton, with their sister Henrietta, came from school. Mr. Heatley was a gentleman of retired disposition, and accord- ngly he never accompanied his nieces to any places of amuse ment. But " every one to pursue his own liking" was his maxim, and he had no objection to their going into company with a proper person as their guide. They were accordingly, under the conduct of Mrs. Stoner, introduced info' many fa milies in the neighbourhood. In. the house of Mr. Willacey, Wilo lived at Barton Modge—(whether this was the Barton Lodge formerly occupied by the testator he could not say)— Miss Catherine Taylor first met Mr. Eastwood, and there GRATIS.] this gentleman first conceived an attachment for her. There were circumstances connected with the Eastwood family which made Mr. Heatley averse to the' addresses of Mr. Eastwood being paid to his niece, and he showed coldness, but did not attempt to controul the affections of the young lady. Miss Taylor thought fit to judge for herself, and she accordingly married Mr. Eastwood. Alicia Taylor, or Mrs. Middleton, countenanced her sister in forming this alliance —it being no uncommon thing for one niece to support the other in opposing what they considered the tyranny of an old uncle. The consequence was something like a quarrel, and Mr. Heatley declared that if his niece did marry Mr. East. wood, they should not be married from his house. Mr. Sher burne, as a friend of the family, was appealed to, and his good offices requested to bring about a change of mind in the tes tator, and induce him to consent to the marriage. Mr. Heatley kept his ground, and Mr. Sherburne offered the young ladles an asylum in his house. The three went to the Willows, and afterwards to Lytham, and there Catharine Taylor was married to Mr. Eastwood. There had been from first to last an endeavour on the part of Mr. Eastwood to obtain and to hold every farthing of money that he could get into his grasp. This was made apparent in a letter dated May 1, 1818, addressed by Mr. Eastwood to Mr. Sherburne, in which the writer intimated that he must have the whole of Miss Taylor's property, real and personal, and that he would settle on her £lO,OOO. After his death, the property was to be divided amongst his children as he thought fit. The mar riage was solemnized soon after. and though Mr. Heatley would not allow it to take place from his house, he, as soon as it was over, was perfectly desirous to be on friendly terms with his niece and her husband, and even invited them both to come to luncheon at his house, as they returned from church. And although through life he exhibited great firmness of purpose, tells them that as to the dis posal of his property he would exercise his judgment, yet he ever manifested to them every kindly feeling. In the fol lowing year Mr. Heatley went to Rome, and, as pretty good evidence of his capacity for managing his property, he (the learned counsel) should lay before the jury a series of letters which the testator had addressed from that city to his land agent, Mr. Teeby. These letters were then read by Mr. Cresswell, who afterwards remarked, that he was sure the jury would be of opinion that in 1819, when the testator was in Rome, he was as competent to dispose of his property as any gentlemen in England. Alicia Taylor was subsequently married to Mr. Middelton. The third daughter, Henrietta, was married to Mr. Deese. an Irish gentleman. Each of the young ladies had a fortune of about ten thou sand pounds. Mr. Sherburne, in 1822, left England, by order of his superior, to take charge of St. Andrew:;, in Valladolid, in lieu of his deceased brother. He remained in Spain till the autumn of 1825, when he returned to England. In that interval Mr. Heatley had made his first will, of which they had obtained possession ; and it would be found that at that period, when the testator could be no otherwise than in the full vigour of his intellect, when there was no trace of suspicion that he was not a free agent, when the nieces were in England, and Mr. Sherburne was at Val ladolid, he made a will much more favourable to the defen dant than that which the plaintiffs that day sought to im peach. The whole of this first will was in the handwriting of Mr. Ileatley, though it was very likely, from the language of it, that sonic lawyer was prepared to give him a sketch of it. It would be found, however, that Mr. Heatley was rather proud of his legal knowledge. Mr. Cress well read the will. It was dated the 21st day of April, 1824, and gave to the testator's niece, Alicia Middleton, £6OOO ; to his niece Catherine Ann Eastwood, 1:6000 ; and bequeathed all the remainder of his real and personal estate to his faith ful friend the Rev. Thomas‘Sherburne, alias Irving, late of the Willows, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, its his own proper estate for ever. Mr. Sherburne was con stituted sole executor of the will, which was witnessed by three persons, one of whom was Mr. Teeby, the land-agent of Mr. Ileatley. An incident at this time occurred which might account for the testator then making his will, and for his thinking that £6,000 was a sum large enough for his nieces. Mrs. Dease had shortly before died in France. It would appear, from the correspondence that he should read respecting her affairs, that Mrs. Dease had had left under her control the larger share of her property. By the mar riage settlement her husband was entitled, in the event of there being no issue, to £l5OO only ; and it would be found that one of the gentlemen, Mr. Middleton, who now talked of practice in the making of a will, suggested to this dying lady the propriety of leaving the property under her control, not to her husband, but to her two sisters —that she acted on his recommendation—that he him self made the will, and that under this will, just before the, period at which Mr. Heatley had made his will, Mrs. East wood and Mrs. Middleton were entitled to divide all the re versionary interest of Mrs. Dease, after her death, with the exception of £l5OO. This might work in two ways on the mind of the testator. It might put him in recollection of the common fate of mortality, and suggest the propriety of his then making a will, and the fact of his nieces having ob tained between them the greater portion of their deceased sister's fortune, might make him think that lie should be dealing handsomely by them if he left them £6,000, which, added to their fortune of £lO,OOO, and a moiety of the pro perty of their sister, would make altogether a fortune of £20,000. In the will of Mrs. Dease, Mr. Heatley was con stituted the executor ; but he declined the trust, thinking that the will was one which was likely to involve him. He perhaps thought that the circumstance of his nephew having made the will would lead to litigation, and he desired to be excused from undertaking the office. Mr. Dease, the widower, wrote to Heatley, requesting him to act, and stating that it was by the desire of his late niece that he had been named executor. Mr. Heatley then consented to act. Mr. Cresswell then proceeded to trace the personal history of the testator during this period by his correspondence. He observed that it had been discovered, in ransacking for papers for this cause, that the testator carried on a trade in Manchester goods, which appeared to have been known only to himself and the person acting as his agent. The letters read were extremely numerous, and some of them, as Mr. C. remarked, exhibited a strain of deep piety, though nothing like an approximation to bigotry, superstition, or slavish dependence upon priests. They also showed that Mr. 11. was munificent, though courteous in his charities— that he was fond of active exercise and field sports, that he was mixed up in county business, and that he was a shrewd and far-seeing man, of whose perfect competency to manage his affairs there had never been the slightest doubt. • Mr. Baron ROLFE here interrupted Mr. Cresswell, to say that if the learned gentleman, from physical incapacity, should not be able to go on with his statement for the whole day, all other cases must be in readiness to be proceeded with. Mr. CRESSWELL thanked his lordship, but said that with ten minutes' rest at one o'clock, he thought he could go on for the whole day. Mr. DUNDAS took this opportunity of asking his lordship whether the special jury case fixed for Monday would come on at the appointed time. The Learned JUDGE could not tell. He hoped that on Saturday his brother Maule would be able to take civil causes, and a great deal must depend upon circumstances. His lordship added, that there were 56 cases in one civil list re maining for trial. Mr. CRESSWELL then proceeded with the documentary part of the case, tracing the history of the testator from the year 18 9 6 to 1833. Of the immense mass of letters read, it would require several columns to give even an outline. They showed that in November, 1826, Mr. Heatley, (who was an old batchelor, and to restore from the annoyances and discomforts of keeping up an establishment,) made an offer to his niece, Mrs. Eastwood, of Brindle Lodge, and the lands belonging thereto, a property which had cost him £30,000 or £40,000, on condition that she should reside on the mansion, and pay to her sister £l5O annually. The same offer had previously been made to Mrs. Middelton, and refused; and it was now also refused by Mrs. Eastwood, who pleaded that her husband's finances were liot in a con dition to enable her to live in a style that ought to belong to such a residence, and to continue the mu nificent charities of the testator. Mr. Heatley kindly com bated their arguments, and pointed out that she could limit her benevolences to the extent of her means, but the generous offer was refused with many thanks. Mrs. Eastwood, how ever, proffered to go with her husband and family to Brindle Lodge, and do all in her power to make her uncle comfort able ; " but," said Mr. Cresswell, " if one thing could have been more uncomfortable than another, to a man like Mr. Heatley, anxious to rid himself of the cares and annoyances of a domestic establishment, it must have been to have su peradded to his establishment the wife and children of ano ther person. He would not take a wife of his own ; how, then, should he like to take that of another man, to hector over him in his own house? I speak for myself," said the learned gentleman warmly ; " I would beg in the streets for a livinc , rather than do it." A courteous reply was sent by Mr. if., who was surprised that the offer of a house which had cost some £20,000, with 120 acres of freehold land, and lease hold land besides of the value of £lOO a-year, should not be thought worthy of acceptance. He bo gg ed that the matter might be altogether forgotten, and that they should continue on their former friendly terms. In March, 1827, Mr. Heatley wrote to Mrs. Eastwood, intimating his intention that he should continue to reside at the lodge ; but that, as some re pairs were needful, and he wished them to be done in his absence, and, moreover, as he wished to have an excuse for ridding himself of some of his domestics without injuring their characters, he should take an out for some time. Mr. Heatley mentioned that if the season had been more ad vanced, be should have gone to Lytham or Blackburn ; but the - weather would not suit for a visit to a watering place, and he had therefore fixed upon going to Mr. Sherburne's, at the Willows. Thither he accordingly—staid some time— then paid a visit to Lytham, at the direction of his physi cian, and returned to Brindle Lodge, after being absent about four months ; for his next letter to his niece was dated " Brindle Lodge, August 25." Several letters followed on the subject of a visit of Mr. and Mrs. Eastwood to the tes tator' at his house, which, after having been fixed to take place shortly, was declined on account of some offence taken by the niece, who thought that the tone of the invitation was not sufficiently cordial. The next and most prominent sub.. jest of this voluminous correspondence had reference to the testator's disposal of his property. It had been ascertained by Mrs. Eastwood, or suspected by her, that her uncle had no intention of leaving the whole of his property to his nieces • and after the question, whether a person would be justified in disposing of his property otherwise than to his direct heirs, had formed the subject of conversation at the table of Mr. Heatley, it formed the subject of a long and somewhat angry correspondence between the niece and her uncle. The letter stoutly maintained that he had a right to dispose of his own property in any way he thought fit, and declared his determination of doing so ; and the former in sisted that the estate was the property of her grandfather, and ought in justice to descend to the next heirs. To com bat this doctrtne, the niece had recourse to argument ; this was ineffectual ; and she then had recourse to scripture, pointing to the 27th chap. of the book of Numbers, which, she said, showed what the will of God with regard to inherit ance was. The testator replied to this by urging that the Mosaic law; and ceremonial had been superseded ; but the niece still urged her point with great ability and resolution, and put it to her uncle whether he could conscientiously dis pose of his property to strangers, when he had near and dear relatives, direct heir to the estate. In this emergency, he had recourse to several divines of the Catholic church, who coin cided with him in opinion that a man might justly divert a portion of his personal property from his lineal descendants. Mrs. Eastwood contended that she had received an opposite opinion from eminent divines, and boldly avowed that her uncle would be committing an act of great injustice by de priving her and her children of their " just and natural right " to inherit what she termed the paternal estate. Ul ntiens7t,ealyd,hewrhedentlnri.i,sH:paittril,w,4h fiimmess but great mild ness, resorted to threats, and said that if be C.'.arlied'out his intention he would be placing his sold injeopardy. The Rev. Mr. Sherburne was written to by the testator, when the correspondence began to as sume a theological shape, and a letter of Mrs. Eastwood's was enclosed to him, with instructions to answer it firmly but mildly, and suggesting the topics to the rev. gentleman. Mr. Cresswell remarked that if it should be contended that all the letters to the niece were not the productions of the testator, this to the defendant must be conceded to be his, and it showed that Mr. H. was a man capable of coming to a free and independent judgment, and one who was resolved not be guided by others in his own affairs. In the course of this correspondence Mr. H. plainly told his niece that neither she nor her children should in herit his property, meaning thereby, as was afterwards ex plained, the whole of his property, which was what was claimed by Mrs. Eastwood. This determination was re peated, in cooler moments, on two subsequent occasions. A partial reconciliation took place between the uncle and niece towards the close of 1832, the former having requested that the subject of their long dispute should be altogether and for ever dropped. On New-year's day, Mr. H. sent Mrs. E. a New-year's gift, which was gratefully and kindly acknowledged. In the following June, the testator sent to a son of Mrs. Eastwood a present of £3O, to pay for his board at college during the next year. This generosity, instead of being received in the same spirit as that of the preceding New Year's Day, called forth from Mrs. Eastwood what ap peared to be a very ungracious reply. She said that it was impossible to regard this as a kindness done to her or hers, since her uncle had declared that he looked upon her as an indifferent person, and as one who was eager to obtain pos session of his property. The old argument was then renewed, and Mr. Ileatley replied by stating that he thought the mat ter had entirely dropped on both sides, and that the Book of Numbers was no more to be referred to. He begged that he might no more be troubled with so unpleasant a topic. Mrs. Eastwood, however, was not disposed to be compliant. She wrote to Mr. Heatley that the subject was distressing to her; but she hoped that he would pause before he did that which would risk the salvation of his precious soul. "My temporal interest may suffer," she added, " but it may be a stepping -stone to that happiness which we hope to enjoy hereafter." The niece afterwards com plained that the estrangement between her and her uncle had been caused by the interference of a third party (Mr. Sherburne), hinted that the determination of Mr. Heatley as to the disposal of his property, was the result of the advice of that third party, and concluded by saying that a priest never interfered in family concerns without betraying both parties for whom he was interested. This accusation was indig nantly denied by the testator ; he cautioned his nieee against giving utterance rashly to calumnious stories ; de clared that he had acted under no dictation from any one, but that his intention, as to the disposal of his property, was the result of his own unaided and free judgment. Mr. Cresswell then said, that at this stage of the proceedings, it was desirable to show the jury what had been done. By the first will, as had been seen, the testator left to each of his nieces £6OOO, and nothing more, and that will had been made in the absence of Mr. Sherburne, the gentleman who was charged with having, by secret infl uence an d malprac tices, induced Mr. Heasley to make a will in his favour, and to the disadvantage of the nieces. The will o f 1829 , ma d e long after Mr. Shrburne had returned to England, and when the Eastwoods were in France, gave and devised Brindle Lodge, the furniture, gardens, farm-house, and lands ad joining, together with various other farms, houses, and cottages, to his two nieces, to have between them during their joint lives, and the survivor to have the entirety during her life, and after them to descend to their lawful children, their heirs and assigns for ever. To each of his god-children, and each of the chidren of his nieces £lOO was left—to Mr. Teeby £lOO, to another servant £lOO, and smaller sums to other domestics. The remainder of his landed property, freehold and leasehold, together with his debts and securities for money, were left to his dear friend Mr. Sherburne, his heirs ' administrators, and assigns. Mr. Sherb urne was cons tit u t e d sole executor. This was increasing the share of the nieces to at least double what was devised to them by the first will. By a codicil to this will an increased amount of landed property, worth from £BOOO to £lO,OOO, was left the nieces, and by so much was the bequest to Mr. Sherburne de creased. This codicil was framed during the period of estrangement, when the testator was supposed to be under the influence of him who was called the grasping priest. Mr. Cresswell said that he would show on the next day, how, under the same influence, in the second codicil still further benefactions were made to the two nieces, and a further provision drawn from that originally left to the defendant. He should produce a correspondence between Mr. Sherburne and Mr. Wheatley, showing that the latter was not a drivelling idiot, a bigot, and a slave to the priest, but that their intercourse was that of one manly mind with another ; and that the teststor, seeing that his nieces were well provided for, had thought that he might very well pro vide for an intimate and esteemed friend. It was now half-past five o'clock, and Sir W. FOLLETT, seeing that the court was about to adjourn, proposed that his learned friend should permit Mr. Watson ' his junior, to proceed then with the reading of th e o th er documents, as the case would, to go on in the present way, last a fortnight. Mr. CRESSWELL replied, that the course suggested was unusual, and that he could himself do his own business. Sir W. FOLLETT said that it might be unusual, but he had never before heard a case opened at this length. Mr. CRESSWELL observed that the Attorney-General opened one in the same way last year. The learned JUDGE said that the case was so important, and the learned counsel had been speaking for so many hours, that he could not press him to proceed. The court, therefore, adjourned till one o'clock on Friday. FRIDAY. This being Good Friday, Mr. Baron ROLFE did not take his seat until five minutes before one. THE WILL CAUSE. After the names of the special jury had been called over, and had taken their seats, Mr. CRESSWELL proceeded with his opening speck. He commenced by briefly recapitulating the facts he had laid be fore the jury on the previous day. They would recollect that he concluded his speech by reading to them the last will, and a codicil to it made by Mr. Heatley in 1829. In a letter writ ten by Mrs. Eastwood, about the period of his executing the first codicil of the will, she declared before God that she con sidered her claim just, and that she should think it right to enforce it. This Mr. Heatley took to be a threat, that she would endeavour to set aside his will after death, and, accord ingly, he took steps to prevent such an event being success ful. He•therefore wrote to Mrs. Eastwood, on the 12th De cember, 1838, in reply to an angry letter from her, express ing his determination to pursue steadily that course of con duct he had marked out for himself. In answer to this, Mrs. Eastwood wrote a coaxing letter, which called for another from the testator dated Decernber 29, 1838, in which he as serts his determination to dispose of his property as he should think fit. Mr. Cresswell then read the third codicil to the will, dated the 3d June, 1826. In this codicil he bequeathes more property to his nieces, and adds a condition at the end of it, that unless they confirmed the bequests to Mr. Sher burne they were to be deprived of all benefit under the will. He knew they entertained a wish to set aside the will, should the property be left to any one but themselves, and therefore he requires them to grant a conveyance of the property given to his friend, Mr. Sherburne, under the will, and in order that they might not do it under the influence of irritated feel ings, he very eonsiderately allowed them twelve months to consider of it. They had lost no time in contesting the va lidity of the will ; but had brought that case before the jury, and he trusted that when the jury had returned their verdict, those nieces would then he able to confirm the will of the tes tator, for he felt convinced that verdict would be against them. Under the will they would hold freehold property worth between £7OO and £BOO a-year, at thirty years' pur chase, besides Brindle Lodge, whilst Mr. Sherburne had pro perty worth about £460 a-year, which, consisting chiefly of cottages, was not worth more than twenty years' purchase. That was Mr. Heatley's last will, made after Mr. Sherburne returned to this country, and it gave the nieces considerably more property than they would have had under the will made during the absence of the defendant. Mr. Heatley died in the year 1840, and during that year, and previously, the East wood family were cons t an tl y at Brindle Lodge, sometimes for a week and sometimes for a fortnight together ; none more competent than they, therefore, to judge of his ability to make a will, and, had he then been under the control of others, to rescue him from that thraldom. Mr. Cresswell then read a complimentary letter from Mr. Heatley to Mr. Eastwood, dated November 22, 1836. The Foreman of the Jury inquired if those letters had the same defect in spelling as had been noticed in the former cor respondence. Mr. CRESSWELL said some of the letters were better in respect to orthography than others. Sir W. Fot Lirr . .--:There is one particular correspondence much better spelt than any other. Mr. CRISSWELL now understood his learned friend's speech.. It would be said they had been written for him, but he (Mr. Cresswell) was sure the jury would be of opinion that the whole of the correspondence was a genuine one, and that the nieces themselves were treating it as such. He then read a series of letters from the testator to Mrs. Eastwood in the most friendly terms, frequently inviting them to visit him, and from which it appeared that the family had occasionally visited him, and he them. This correspondence covered a period from Dec. 1836, to the same month in 1838. The next were two letters, addressed to Miss C. Eastwood whilst at a nunnery at Boulogne-sur-Mer. After reading them the learned counsel proceeded to lay before the jury a series ad dressed to the defendant in the cause, commencing in 1833, and extending to within a month or two of his death. In these letters the testator appears to have frequently con sulted the rev. gentleman as to his domestic circumstances, that he had in more than one instance written to him for drafts of answers to letters lie had received. On this Mr. Cresswell observed that the jury would find he had written all letters of business himself, but with regard to compli mentary he had asked for assistance in inditing. After read ing the letters, Mr. Cresswell felt assured that they must re move all doubt, had any existed before, as to whether be was acting and the influence of Mr. Sherburne. From those letters he was found treating the defendant as one gentleman would another, and so far from his being frequently at Brin dle Lodge, Mr. Heatley complained of his absence on many occasions. He had next to introduce Mr. Heatley to them as a man of business. In 1817 he joined a Mr. Heyes in the Manchester trade, and carried on an extensive traffic for ten years, until the year 1827. He then left the business entirely to Mr. Heyes, taking his bond for £22,000, the value of the stock. Mr. Heyes subsequently removed to London, where he entered into the stationery business, and joined Mr. Perry, a gentleman much celebrated as the manufacturer of steel pens and inkstands. Mr. Heyes would be called before them, and he would prove that Mr. Heatley was a most ex cellent man of business, and quite competent to manage his affairs. The books of the concern had not been found. When Mr. Heatley retired they were given up to him, and the pro bability was that he had destroyed them. Mr. Cresswell then read a number of letters to Mr. Heyes, from 1827 to June, 1840, near the period of his death, by which he acknow ledged the receipt of various sums of money on account of the bond, for principal and interest, amounting to upwards .of £16,000. It appeared also that the various sums on ac count of the bond had been regularly endorsed on the back of that document. Mr. Cresswell then said he should call before them Mr. Tebay, a land-agent to several gentlemen in the neighbourhood of Preston. That gentleman had known him for 35 years, and he would tell them he seldom met with a gentleman more completely competent to manage his own affairs. The learned gentleman next produced his books, from which it appeared that they were kept with great regu larity down to the year 1838, when his health began to fail. He was also regular in auditing his own accounts, and Mr. Tebay had to produce them for his inspection ; nay; shortly before his death Mr. Tebay was ordered to prepare his ac counts for an audit, th e infirm state of his (Heatley's).health having prevented his doing that for the last year or two ; but he died before it was completed. After describing the way in which the will had been executed and attested, as is de tailed in the evidence, the learned gentleman concluded by observing that j ur h y. he left He invitedthe question te w ith coOdence in the hands u t m ost scrutiny and in vestigation for the def en d an t . Th e proper ty was of very little importance to him in comparison, with his character. That character was to bin of the utmost importance, and, there fore, 111 was anxious it should be set right with the T Called on him about some land. I know Mr. Sherburne. Did not see -Mr. Sherburne on the day I signed the docu ment. Mr. Sherburne used to call on me, and I used to talk with him. Mr.Tebay came and spoke to Mr. Heatley whilst he was in tay counting-house. Re-examined.—l always thought him a man of sound mind. Never heard it doubted before he died. No one could doubt it. I went to try to purchase some land from him. By Sir W. FOLLETT.—I tried to purchase some land from him to build a chapel on. Ido not know whether any mo ney was paid for the land. I subscribed, and was one of the committee and treasurer, and paid the money into the bank. After the bargain was gone into, Dr. Briggs, the Roman Catholic, purchased the laud, and I do not know whtber any money was paid for it. I paid no money towards the land, but did towards building the chapel. I paid the money into the bank considerably after I went to Mr. Heatley. I think Mr Sherburne is one of the trustees of that chapel. Never heard him say that Mr. Heatley gave the land, and no money was paid for it. • By the JUDGE.—The price of the land wips to be lid a yard. --- John Horn examined by Mr. MURPHY.—I am a corn merchant residing in Preston. Have known the late Mr. Heatley upwards of forty years. On the 25th June went into the last witness's counting-house, and saw Heatley, Sanson, and last witness there. Mr. Heatley produced a paper, and said something about his will. Saw all sign it, and I signed it. Mr. Heatley was in good health, and appeared quite well. Thomas Sanson examined by Mr. WATSON.—I am in partnership with Mr. Holmes. I signed this document (the will). Saw Heatley_and the rest sign it: Mr. CREsswELL here asked his lordship if he would there pause ? Sir W. FOLLETT wished his lordship to proceed, as, by ad journing so early, the cause would continue for a very consi derable time. Mr. CRESSWELL said they had now reached a point in the evidence, and, probably, that was the most convenient place to break off. Sir W. FOLLETT said he was anxious to afford every ac commodation he could to his learned friend, but very little courtesy had been shown to him in the cause. Mr. eRESSWELL (warmly)—More courtesy has been shown to you than to me. The learned JUDGE said he bad no objection to sit for half an hour or so, if any real progress could be made; but, during the last six weeks, he had sat daily, on an average, ten hours, and it was almost exhausting nature to continue late. A Juryman also expressed his wish to adjourn. Sir W. FOLLETT said, after the intimation from the Bench and the jury, he would readily accede to an adjournment. The Court then adjourned at a few minutes before seven. SATURDAY CONCLUSION OF THE GREAT WILL CAUSE Mr. Baron ROLFE took his seat at nine o'clock James Tebay.—ls a land agent, residing in Brompton, near Preston, and have been so forty-three years. Recollects the late Mr. Heatley's father. Witness's father was land agent to him, and to his son, the late Mr. Heatley, up to the year 1805, when he died. Witness succeeded him, and con tinued so up to the time of testator's death. (An account of property taken by testator on his father's death was put in and identified by witness as his father's handwriting.) Re collects the building of Brindle Lodge, which testator regu larly superintended. It must have cost £lB,OOO. He went to reside there in 1808. Witness did not then know Mr. Sherburne—not until 1820. Witness spoke to the sale of the leasehold property to Mr. Brockholes, in 1812, for £58,000, and considered it a good sale. Witness received testator's rents, and settled with him. He directed a particular way of making out the rental—making it up in separate sheets, tied together like a lawyer's brief, that he might refer to each year's accounts at any time. This continued to the period of his death, though the settlements were less frequent, and a cash account being constantly kept for his inspection. He had appointed Thursday for the last settlement, and died on the Tuesday. In the year 1824, witnessed a will for him. (Identified the will, and the handwriting of the testator.) Witness spoke to the offer of Brindle Lodge to plaintiffs, and of the refusal ; of his subsequent purchase of property in the neighbourhood to the amount of £lB,OOO. Witness was directed to look out for another house for testator at Hough. No attorney was employed in these purchases—witness made them under Mr. Heatley's instructions, who looked over the drafts. He was, in witness's opinion, a man of great under standing, equal in business matters to any one witness ever met. He bought and sold property at Preston, also very judiciously. Remembers a sale to Mr. Thom linson—a gentleman here at the bar, about two or three years ago. Witness here also identified testator's letters relative to a transaction for a purchase from Sir Henry B. Hoghton. The letters were read, dated 1831—one a short one, for Sir Henry's perusal ; the other a longer, for wit nesses private guidance. The instructions for the bargain were minute and judicious, and from their legal precision and prudence were listened to with some amusement by the bar. Witness'also identified letters, date lin 1815. address ed to him by Messrs. Pilkington, of Preston. relative to drafts sent to! him for perusal, clearly showing they treated him as having a perfect knowledge and understandnig of their contents. His practice of perusing his own deeds and drafts when he made sales or purchases, continued up to the end of his life. Witness and his wife were invited to visit testator. Recollects a Mrs. Talbot living at Salisbury, near Brindle. She had daughters. Recollects meeting one at the house, Recollects Mr. and Miss Gradwell. The latter is now in Ireland- Met many people there—many clergymen. There are particular times of meeting, called a " conference," when he had usually a party, but witness was not there at such. Remembers borrowing of him, on witnesse's own account, sonic money on bond. He asked if I had any objection to have the bond made to Mr. Sherburne. (Bond for £3,800 to Mr. Sherburne produced and identified, with memoran dum of interest paid, in testator's hand-writing, up to the last term before his death.) We died suddenly. When wit ness went immediately after, there was no one in the house hut servants. The same :day Mr. and Mrs. Eastwood came, and took possession of the papers in the house. He heard testator speak of his correspondence with Mrs. East wood, and he said he had received letters from her, to the effect, that he had no right to dispose of his property, and it seemed to put him out of the way. He asked witness what he thought, and witness told him that if property was not entailed, a person had a right to do with it what he liked. He spoke again of the latters latterly, and witness advised him to put them out of the way and think no more of them. On the :morning of the funeral the will was opened. Mr. Eastwood read it the day after he died, and seemed much disappointed, and said he would dispute it to the last far thing he had in the world. Mrs. and Mrs. Eastwood remained at the house to the funeral. Mr. Eastwood, on the morning of the funeral, gave the will to Mr. Sherburne, saying it was a piece of waste paper and not a valid will. He then ordered Mr. Sherburne's horse, who took the hint and rode away. The property taken by the plaintiffs under the will amounts already to a rental of £614, exclusive of Brindle Lodge and the lands adjoining. Part is likely to increase, from lives falling in, to £BO or £9O a-year more. The value of the Lodge and land adjoining is, to let, about £250 a-year. Testator's nieces had fortunes of £lO,OOO each. Witness knew by being accountant to Mr. Heatley when he settled the executorship, and detailed interviews between the testa tor and the plaintiffs relative to the division of the property, which one party considered was divisible, but which the other contended was descendable in the entirety. This appeared to be a long and intricate affair arising out of Mrs. Dease's will, of which Mr. Heatley was executor. The property to be divided among the three sisters, Mrs. Eastwood, Mrs. Middleton, and Mrs. Pease, was about £30,000 ; and by the death and will of the latter, the two former took the whole in equal moieties. Sir Wm. FOLLETT objected to the production of the very long correspondence. Mr. CRESSWELL said his object was to show that, so late as 1831, the plaintiffs were calling in testator to arbitrate in their affairs. . . . . . _ Examination resumed.—During the last three or four years have seen Mr. and Mrs. Eastwood visiting at Brindle Lodge three or four times a year. about a week at a time. Had seen Mr. Sherburne also. Had seen the former oftener there than the latter. Had not seen the latter often there lately. Mr. and Mrs. Middleton had been abroad for some time be fore testator's decease. Testator was very charitable to the poor in every mode, and to a very considerable amount. Some years ago assisted testator to sort his deeds, and he kept those relating to the Brindle, Salmsbury, and Warton properties, and said he should and those relating to the Preston property, which Mr. Sherburne, to Mr. Sherburne. The rental of that is £-167, some little of it improvable for building ground. Remembers Mr. Eastwood asking me if Heatley was not seliing his property, and I told him he was selling ground rents in different places in Preston, and after wards told Mr. Heatley of the conversation. Mr. CRESSWELL called the plaintiffs to produce seventeen conveyances to testator, from March 1791 to March 1837, and put in twenty or thirty others from him. All these, witness said, Mr. Heatley had perused himself. . Examination resumed.—Down to the day of his death witness had never the least doubt of testator's competency to make a will. Sir W. FOLLETT ' after some conference with his client's attorney, then addressed himself personally to Mr. Cress well, and the two learned gentlemen requested his lordship's permission to retire together. After having retired for nearly an hour, the counsel returned to court, and Sir W. FOLLETT said it would save time if his lordship would allow him to state, that an arrangement had been come to in this case satisfactory to all the parties, and he begged his lordship's permission to say a word or two to the jury, relative to the terms on which it had been arranged. Mr. and Mrs. Middleton and Mr. and Mrs. Eastwood being the nearest relatives of the late Mr. Heatley, feeling themselves aggrieved by his will, thought they were justified, and he (Sir W. F.) thought also, that they were justified, in mak ing the most ample investigation into the circumstances un der which it was executed. That was done by a suit in Chancery, out of which the writ issued, out of which that in quiry originated. The result of it had satisfied them, and it had satisfied their legal advisers, that the late Mr. Heatley was, at the time of making the will, and at the time of mak ing the codicil, competent to make the will and the codicil, and that there was no ground for disputing his competency. He, and his learned friend Mr. Cresswell, had arranged cer tain matters connected with the suit of a money nature, in a manner satisfactory to both parties, and he rejoiced that there was no further occasion for him to trouble the jury. Mr. CRESSWELL said, as the case had gone so far, he thought he also might be excused if he asked permission to address a few words to the jury. He had stated, when he first opened the case, he had stated on several subsequent occasions, and he repeated now, that the sole feeling of his client in the matter was, that of anxiety for his own reputa tion ; that he was anxious to have the matter probed to the bottom ; and that he never disputed the right of the heirs-at law to institute any inquiry they pleased into a will which alienated from them and their families property which would otherwise have descended to them. But at the same time he was determined for his own sake to have the inquiry, now instituted, carried on until the other party expressed them selves perfectly satisfied with the manner in which the will had been executed. He had now done that ; his character was fully cleared ; it was admitted that there waa no foundation for the suit in equity, nor for the action at law. With respect to the property in dispute, if the other parties so pleased, he was willing to let them ac quire it on very e as y te rms . The will being confirmed, the suit in equity will be dismissed, but the defendant, of course, admitting the propriety of the inquiry, will not call on the plaintiffs to pay his cost. Mr. Cresswell then apologised for tar h e ne, e yt andbbraa had made trustede o e m d some e or on Mrs. trr,ke havingDw heiscehe, entered ri n el ltah into t and on early ot ho re marks anxiety for the honour of e s case m a t hreeteweo defendant,eft with even rv e s ee c nm a s me e e 0 , marks he made would be attributed to zeal and excitement, 1 - '/A Cd: TJ m t r i! 001. 1tari ct rll7 AND GENERAL COMMERCIAL ADVERTISER. TUESDAY, APRIL 13, 1841. The learned gentleman concluded hilt speech about a quar ter before five o'clock, 'having spoken on Thursday and Fri day upwards of eleven hours. The time, however, was chiefly occupied with documentary evidence. The following witnesses were then called for the defen dant : Henry Turner said he was a farmer at Seagram, in this county. In 1829 lived at Fleetwood-hall. In the month of February, 1829, was sent for to Brindle Lodge. He proved that the will was produced to him on that day, and signed by him, Mr. Heatley, Mr. Orrell, a surgeon, and Thomas Smith, a farmer. No one else was present. Mr. Heatley said he was obliged•to have witnesses to his will, and he had sent for them to sign it. That observation was made before he signed it. Had known Mr. Heatley from a boy, and fre quently saw him. They shot over Fleetwood-hall. The state of his mind was very good. Cross-examined by Sir W. FOLLETT.—The gardener fetch ed me. I live about a mile and a quarter from Brindle. Mr. Heatley charged us to be particular as to whether he was capable of making a will. Dr. Orrell said he was, and we said the same. What was it you said ? We said we all thought that he was capable of making a will. That was said before he signed it. That was said before he signed it. He clapped his pen on the seal, and then he wrote his name after. We sat some little time after we had all signed. Mr. Heatley said it was proper to have three witnesses to sign his will. Smith and I are not tenants to Mr. Heatley. lam a Roman catholic. Have seen Mr. Sherburne. Mr. Smith was priest of Brindle, and Mr. Carter at S a l ms b ury . Th e c h a pel was near Brindle Lodge, and Mr. Smith lived near. Mr. Pope lived there before. Both I and Mr. Heatley went to that chapel. Went to that chapel. Went to confession to Mr. Pope and Mr. Smith. Re-examined by Mr. CRESSWELL.-Mr. Pope was an old infirm gentleman. He was there twenty years. I some times went to Salmsbury. .Thomas Smith.—l am a farmer. In February, 1829, lived at Walton, about a quarter of a mile from Brindle Lodge. One of his servants came and told me I was wanted, When I got to Brindle Lodge I went to a room where I saw Mr. Heatley and Mr. Orrell. Henry Turner accompanied me into the room. Mr. Heatley said, " I have called on you as witnesses as I have been making my will, and I sup pose you don't think but that I am capable of making my will." We said yes—all three of us. He also said, " I don't make it with any to any one, but as a duty which I owe to myself and everybody, and now you are witnesses that i sign this as my last will—William Heatley." He then wrote his name, and gave the pen to Dr. Orrell, and myself, and Henry Turner, and we signed it. That is the document, pointing to the will. I signed last. I have known the late Mr. Heatley 30 years. I thought him a man most excellent both in words and examples. I never saw anything badly conducted about his farms. John Orrell, examined by Mr. WATSON.---I am a surgeon at Preston. Was acquainted with the late Mr. Heatley and attended as his medical adviser for fifteen years, and conti nued down to his death. That is my name to the will. I signed it in his library. I came in consequence of a note I received the evening before, inviting me to take breakfast with him. To the best of my knowledge no one was present at the time I signed it, except Mr. Heatley. After I had signed it two other persons came in, Smith and Turner. Mr. Heatley desired them to sign the paper which I had signed. Don't know the words used on the occasion except request ing them to sign it, which they did in my presence and that of Mr. Heatley. Mr. Heatley was a man of sound strong mind, a very shrewd• and intelligent person, a gentleman of general information and of strong intellect. I think he was quite capable of managing his affairs. Thought him very pious in religion, but had not much conversation with him on that subject. Was his only medical attendant except the late Mr. Barlow, of Blackburn, whom I met at a consulta tion. Mr. Heatley had to undergo an operation which was performed. This took place previous to the will. I attended the household as well as himself. Attended many poor per sons in the neighbourhood, for which Mr. Heatley paid me. Have breakfasted there frequently, and occasionally have dined there. I dined there four or five mouths previous to his death. When I have visited the poor at his instance he has accompanied me several times. I have met Mr. Sher burne, of the Willows, which is about 14 miles from Brindle Lodge, at dinner there. Mr. Heatley and he appeared on the most friendly terms. Mr. Heatley treated him with the greatest respect. Cross-examined by Sir W. FoLLErr.—Was not certain Mr. Sherburne was Mr. Heatley's confessor. Had no know ledge of it except from report. lam not aware he was often there. He was generally in the drawing-room. Never saw Mr. Sherburne in Mr. Heatley's bed-room. Have seen them together in Mr. Heatley's study. Have dined there three or four times during the last fifteen years. On the last occasion met there Rev. Mr. Sherburne, Rev. Mr. Thompson, Rev. Crook, of Manchester ; Rev. Mr. Carr, of Blackburn ; Rev. Mr. Dowden, Clayton Green; Mr. James Tebay, his steward, and Mr. Tebay's son; the Rev. Mr. Carter, of Salmsbury, but do not recollect any one else. With the ex ception of Mr. Tebay, and his son,. all the rest were Roman catholic priests. Never met any one there but Mr. James Tebay. Mr. Heatley was not particularly in bad health dur ing the last fifteen years. He was a strong person for his years. When he was ind►sposed he had an aversion to see any one His health on the whole was not of a nature to prevent his mixing in society. I think I have seen the Rev. Mr. Thomp son there occasionally, but not so often as Mr. Sherburne. lam a Roman catholic. Except Smith and Dowdcn, who were of the regular clergy, all the rest were of the secular. 1 have attended Mr. Sherburne. He never told me he was confessor to Mr. Heatley. I have not had much conversa tion with Mr. Heatley on religious subjects. He attended mass at Mr. Smith's chapel, at l3rindle. He was very strict in fasting. Never had any transaction of business with him except professionally. Sir W. FOLLETT.—Were you not expecting a legacy from him ?—I can scarcely answer that. Sir W. FoLLErr.—Have you said anything about it ?—I believe I have. (Laughter.) Sir W. FOLLETT.—Have you not said . that if you could get Sherburne out of the way you would have a legacy ?—De cidedly not. I expected a legacy merely because I had at tended him for fifteen years. Was not angry at not receiving a legacy: Sir W. FOLLETT.-Will you swear that you never said he was an old bigot ?—I am not aware I ever made use of such an expression ; I may have sa id h e was very warm i n his re ligious feelings ; I may have done so, but I am not aware of using the expression. Sir W. FOLLETT.—WiII you undertake to swear that you did not say he was a bigotted old fool ?—I will swear I never made use of such an expression. I live about five miles from Brindle Lodge. 1 reside in Preston and attend the Roman Catholic chapel there. It is not usual for the priest of the chapel they attend to be their confessor? they may go to any priest they think proper. I was, decidedly, in the room, and signed my name before the other two persons came in. Ido not recollect Mr. Heatley asking whether we considered him capable of making a will. He did not state it to be his will. 1 did not know it was his will. All that passed was his asking me to witness his signature, and I did. Nothing was said about his will whilst the other two persons were present. Was not aware that it was his will until the morning of his funeral. Did not go by direction of Mr. Sherburne to get an alteration made in the printed judgment of the court. William Smith examined by Mr. M URPHY.—I am a far mer at Walton-le-Dale, near Brindle Lodge. In the month of August, 1835, was sent for to Brindle Lodge. Found Cornelius W.Manus and John Ainsworth. Mr. Heatley said to us that he would wish us to sign a paper. (Witness said he signed the codicil.) Saw also the other parties sign it.) Ido not recollect seeing Mr. Heatley sign it. I know him nineteen years. Considered him a man of business. He superintended and gave directions about his farms. Cross-examined by Mr. DUNDAS.—I did not see any one else in the room except Mr. Heatley and us three at the time the will was signed. Ainsworth signed first, I second, and then M`Manus. Then Hcatley took the will into his hand and said, this will do very well. He then gave us each ls., and ordered the butler to give us some liquor, and we went away. Cornelius M`Manus—l am a tailor and draper at Hough ton. Went to Mr. Heatley's in 1835, and signed this will. Signed it in the study at Brindle Lodge. Squire Heatley sent for me. John Ainsworth and William Smith were pre sent. Mr. Ainsworth signed the will first, then Ainsworth, then Smith, and me last. Mr. Heatley said he sent for us to put our names to a codicil of a will. This was said before we signed it. Knew Mr. H. better than 20 years. Had dealings with him frequently, and used to converse with him. His mind was decidedly good. Cross-examined by Sir W. FOLLETT—I used to work for Mr. Heatley. Knew Mr. Sherburne very well. Have been at Heatley's house often. Have never done business for Mr. Sherburne. I am a Roman Catholic. Have been in the habit of attending the chapel at Brindle. Have been twice at Mr- Sherburne's chapel in my lifetime. He gave me one shilling. . _ _ John Ainsworth examined by Mr. MURPHY-1 am a shop keeper at Preston. I was at the house of Mr. Heatley, and signed his will. He saw me in the morning, and he asked me to go to the lodge in the afternoon, and bring M`Manus with me. We went, and Mr. Smith was also there. We saw Mr. Heatley in the study. He said—" Do you think I am sensible and capable of doing anything?" I said I thought he was. He then produced a paper, and put it on the table. This is it, and I signed it. Mr. Ileatley signed first, andwe put our names after. Cross-examined by Mr. DUNDAS—I deal in pork and pro visions. I knew Mr. Sherburne at that time. I used to be at Brindle Lodge. I have seen Mr. Sherburne there. Was living about a quarter of a mile from Brindle Lodge. William Holmes examined by Mr. WATSON.—I am a grocer in Preston, and have been in business thirty-three or thirty-four years. Was acquainted with Mr. Heatley. Knew him when he first went to Barton Lodge about forty years ago. I signed this will in my office in Preston. Mr. Heatley called upon me. It was about eleven o'clock. My father and a young man named Samson, my partner, were in the shop. Mr. Heatley said he wished to speak to me, and walked into office. He then said he had a document in his pocket connected with his will, which he wanted me to sign, and there would be two other signatures required. H e saw my father in the shop, and asked if he could write. I said he could if old age did not prevent him, and Mr. neatley re plied he would do for one. Pointing to Mr. Samson he said he would do for the third. "He is your son, is he not? " I said he was not my son, and he wanted to know who he was. 1 told him he was my partner. He then asked me if he was a catholic, and I said he was a church of England, man. He said he would do. Whilst this took place my fa ther went out, and I said I could find another in his stead, and Mr. Heatley said " Who is he ?" I told him Mr. John Horn, a neighbouring corn dealer. He asked me who :he was, and I told him his uncle lived near Barton Lodge. Mr. Heatley did not appear to know him. I then said he was the same gentleman who went into partnership with Charn ley, at Liverpool, and who died there. I then went and fetched Mr. Horn into the counting-house, and there were present Heatley, Horn, Samson, and myself. Heatley then took this paper (the will) out of his pocket and said it was a document connected with his will, and we must see him exe cute it. He then signed it in our presence. I then signed it, next John Horn, and next Thomas Samson. I saw all sign it. Mr. Heatley then put it in his pocket and went away, thanking us for the trouble he had given us. I used frequently to see Mr. Heatley. He used to call frequently and talk to me. He was of sound intellect, and has not left his equal behind him_ (Laughter.) Never beard him spoken ill of until after he died. Sir W. FOLLETT.—Do you mean that he had not left his equal in point of intellect ?—Yes. Sir W. FOLLETT.—Then you considered him the greatest man in existence. (Laughter.) Mr. CuusswELL.—My learned friend is jealous. Cross-examination continued. —He used to come often to call on, me, and I used to talk with him on politics and reli hion. My offi ce was near his coach-house and stables, an d e often came and stayed with me while his carriage was got ready. Have been at Brindle. Lodge, but not on a visit. [POSTAGE FREE. • and to no intention to say anything offensive to a lady. The learned JUDGE expressed his great gratification at the termination of the trial. In this case, as in a former very similar one, (that of the late Mr. Blundell, of Ince, we pre sume,) he had kept his judgment, and he doubted not the jury had kept theirs, in reserve. But he must confess the observation occurred to him in the progress of the case, that if this will could be successfully impugned, on the ground that the testator was not competent to make a will, it would go far to shake people's faith in any will that could possibly be made. A verdict was then formally recorded for the Defendant. [The remainder of the trials will be found in the STANDARD.] KINGSTON ASSIZES (Before Mr. Baron PARKE and a Common Jury.) CHURCH-RATES—TAYLOR V. WESTON, ESQ. This was an action against the defendant, a magistrate for the county of Surrey, for an illegal trespass upon the plain tifra premises, and removing a coal-scuttle, his property. The defendant pleaded not guilty under the statute. Mr. Peacock, in the absence of Mr. Platt, conducted the case for the plaintiff, and Mr. Sergeant Channel appeared for the defendant. Mr. PEACOCK stated that this was an action brought by the plaintiff, who was a person in humble circumstances, against the defendant, who is a banker and a magistrate for the county of Surrey, to recover compensation in damage for what he considered to be an illegal entry upon his premises by virtue of a warrant signed by him. The circumstances of the case were these :—lt appeared that in the month of De cember, 1539, a vestry meeting of the parish of Christchurch was convened for• the purpose of making a church-rate, and by the notice it appeared that this rate was to be applied to certain purposes such as insurance, paying the parish clerk, paper, printing, and other items to which a church-rate ought not to be legally applied. A penny rate was proposed, and several inhabitants, among whom was the plaintiff, protested against a rate being made•for such purposes, but the rate was ultimately carried, upon a poll of the parish being taken. The plaintiff afterwards, feeling convinced that the rate was not legally made, entered a caveat in the ecclesiastical court, with a view to try its validity ; but the churchwardens, not withstanding this, summoned him before the defendant to show cause why he refused to pay the rate, and it was out of this proceeding that the present action arose. By an act of parliament of the 53d Geo. 111., cap. 127, sec. 7, power was given to summon parties for non-payment of church-rates when the sum in dispute did not exceed £lO, and the magis trates were empowered to enforce the payment by a warrant of distress ; but by the same act, it was also specially provided that, where a defendant expressed his inten tion to dispute either his liability or the validity of the rate in an ecclesiastical court, the magistrate's jurisdiction should immediately cease. In this case the plaintiff, upon being summoned before the defendant, expressed his intention to dispute the validity of the rate, and, by that act, he should confidently submit, and take the jurisdiction from the magistrates ; but, notwithstanding his protest, the defendant had thought proper to assume jurisdiction in the matter ; and, upon the plaintiff refusing to pay the amount for which he was summoned, an order, and subsequently a warrant of distress was issued, and under that warrant a broker and a constable proceeded to the house of tile plaintiff, and seized a cole-scuttle, which they sold. It might be said this was a trumpery cause for action, but he begged the jury to remember that this involved a most important question, in which the interests of the public were materially concerned. It was a serious inconvenience and injury to any one to have an execution put into his house, and if the defendant had illegally authorised the pro ceeding, he was liable to the plaintiff, and he trusted the jury would give his client such reasonable damages as the justice of the case required. . William Bridge, the beadle of Christchurch parish, proved that he went with a broker named Lovelase to the plaintiff's house, with a warrant of distress signed by defendant. The plaintiff refused to pay, and they took away a coal-scuttle, which was afterwards sold. Mr. C. E. Meymott, the vestry clerk, produced the minutes of the vestry at which the rate in question was made. The minutes were read ; and it appeared that when the vestry met, the plaintiff proposed that it adjourned sine die, but the rector refused to put the motion, on the ground that, as the vestry was convened for the express purpose of making a church-rate, no motion but one having that object could be put from the chair. A halfpenny rate, in lieu of a penny one, was also proposed, but on the penny rate being carried, the plaintiff and several other inhabitants signed a protest, and among them were the foilowing : That the former churchwardens had not given any account of the expenditure of the last rate ; that the present churchwardens refused to state precisely what amount would be required ; and like wise that the rate was to be applied to purposes for which it could not be legally raised. This was the plaintiff's case. Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL then addressed the jury, and said he had the honour to appear on behalf of a gentlemen of station and high respectability in the county, and lie would commence his observations to the jury by stating that his client did not in the least complain of the proceeding that had been adopted against him, and he admitted to the fullest extent the right of the plaintiff to question the legality of any act committed by him. lie felt, however, confidently that in the present case he had not only performed his duty le gally, but also kindly and considerately towards the plain tiff, and in fact he had done no more than the law, to which they were all bound to submit, compelled him. He was aware that the subject which had given rise to the present action was one of great interest and excitement, but he was quite sure that the jury would look calmly and dispassionately at all the facts of the case, and he was confident that they would return a verdict for his client. They had heard the circumstances of the case, and it was quite clear that the rate in question must have been abandoned altogether, or Mr. Weston must have issued the warrant in question, and he apprehended that in so doing he had acted in strict confor mity with the law. The question at issue was one partly of fact and partly of law. The learned counsel then referred to the act of Parliament before alluded to, and said that the ob ject of that act was not to enable a party summoned for non payment of church rates by any frivolous objection to set aside the jurisdiction of the magistrates and embarrass the churchwardens, but it required a real, bond fide intention to try the validity of the rate to be shown, and in that case only superseded the jurisdiction of the magistrates. In the pre sent case a rate was laid before the defendant to enforce ; it was prima facie a good rate, and he was bound to enforce it. The defendant refused to pay, and he was summoned, and when before the magistrates he handed in a paper, on which he merely stated that he objected to the rate, and begged the magistrates not to adjudicate upon the case. If such a pro ceeding as this was held to be sufficient to destroy the juris diction of the magistrates, the object of the act in question, which was intended as an ease to the subject, and to prevent the great expense of an appeal to an ecclesiastical court, would be entirely frustrated. A man when summoned for non payment of church-rate would only have to say he objected to the validity of the rate, and the then churchwardens would have no alternative but to expend an immense amount of the parish money to compel him to do so, by expensive and protracted proceedings in the ecclesiastical court. His impression of the law, however, was that a magistrate was bound to see whether the party's object was really to try the validity of the rate, or whether it was merely to embarrass the church wardens and prevent its collection. The learned counsel then cited the case of the " King v. the Chapelwardens of Milurow," in which the defendant gave notice that he would not pay the church-rate because he was not liable, as he had no seat in the church. In th a t case the court held that the jurisdiction of the magistrate was taken away, because, al though the objection of the defendant was not valid in law, still it evinced a bond fide intention on the part of the de fendant to try the validity of the rate ; and again, in the case of " The King v. Wrothesley, Clerk," the Court of Queen's Bench had to consider the question of bona fides, and Lord Tenterden, in giving judgment, said it was absurd to suppose that the 53d Geo. 111, intended that the mere statement of a party summoned, that he disputed the validity of the rate, should oust the magistrate's jurisdiction ; and he ruled that the magistrate should be satisfied by the defendant that he had a real intention to try the validity of the rate, and that he ought to be called upon to give some ground for opposing it, and a mandamus in that case issued, calling upon the ma gistrate to adjudicate. The present plaintiff had only done this ; he told the magistrates that he disputed the validity of the rate, and, although the bench kindly told him it was not sufficient, and that he must assign some ground upon which he disputed the legality of the rate, he refused to do so, and the magistrates, conceiving that they had jurisdiction, had issued the warrant. He should produce witnesses to prove these facts, and he was satisfied that he should be able to show them that Mr. Weston had not only not exceeded the law, but that he had only done what the law absolutely de manded of him, with kindness and consideration. Mr. C. E. Meymott was again called, and he deposed that he was present at the meeting of magistrates when the plain tiff was summoned for non-payment of the church-rate. When the plaintiff was asked why he refused to pay, he re plied that he objected to the rate. The defendant told him this was a mere statement, and that the magistrates would adjudicate unless he stated what his objections were to the rate. The plaintiff then handed in a paper to the following effect :—" I do hereby respectfully give you notice that I ob ject to the validity of the rate, and I request you to forbear to give judgment thereon." The magistrates having read the paper, again told the plaintiff it was not sufficient, and at the same time informed him that there were cases decided in which it had been ruled that a person under such circum stances was bound to give the magistrates his reasons for dis puting the legality of the rate. The plaintiff replied that he considered his notice was quite sufficient, and the magistrates replied that they thought it was not, and unless he gave them sonic reason they should adjudicate upon the application 'of the churchwardens. The plaintiff still refused, and the de fendant had then no alternative but to issue the warrant, which was accordingly done. One of the magistrates told the plaintiff in the most courteous manner that it he did not pay the rate they should be compelled to issue a distress warrant. Cross-examined.—No one was present but the magistrates, the collector, the churchwardens, witness, and the plaintiff; but if the latter had thought proper to bring a legal adviser with him, there would have been no objection made. He was present at the vestry meeting when the rate in question was made, and he knew that the plaintiff protested against its legality, and signed the protest to that effect. Sergeant CIIANNELL submitted that what took place at the vestry could not be evidence. Baron PARKE said he would admit it as tending to shew bona fides on the part of the piaintiff. There were three questions, as appeared to him in the case, two of which were purely of law, and the third partaking of fact and law. The first was, whether under the act in question, the magistrates had the power of deciding whetherthe objection to a rate was made bona fide. This was a question that should be decided. If the magistrates bad that power, they had exercised it in this case, and there was an end of the matter for the plaintiff. The second question was for the jury to say (supposing the magistrates had not power) whether the objection was really bona fide or not ; and the third question was whether, sup. posing the jury believed the party really did intend to dis pute the validity of the rate, whether he ought to assign his grounds of objection. The most important point, however, was whether the jury believed that the plaintiff really in tended to dispute the validity of the rate in an ecclesiastical court. Mr. Meymott was then further questioned, and in answer to a question from the learned counsel, he said, that at the vestry meeting one of the amendments proposed by the plaintiff was, that it should adjourn. Baron PARKE remarked, that as the vestry wa s s p ec i a ll y convened to make a church-rate, this could o n ly b e l oo k e d upon as a vexatious opposition to the proceedings. Cross-examination continued.—The churchwardens did not refuse to produce the accounts that were required ; but it was nut in their power to do; so, One of the protests 9 , against the rate was grounded on the fact, that a suit of the late churchwardens against an inhabitant was then pending in the ecclesiastical court. . . . Mr. Sergeant CRAM ELL having addressed the jury upon the minutes of vestry that had been put in, Baron PARKE ititiniated kits OphilOn, that the only ques tion for the jury was, whether the plaintiff really intended to dispute the legality of the rate ; or Whether he had merely made a frivolous objection for the purpose of procrastinating the proceedings and annoying the churchwardens. Mr. PEAcocK then took a variety of technical objections to the form of order and the warrant, and contended that upon the face of them they were bad. Baron PARKE said it appeared to him that the only im portant objection was the one, that the warrant (lid not state that the magistrates had jurisdiction. He should not, how ever, stop the case, but would reserve the point it it became necessary. Mr. PEACOCK then replied upon the whole case, and con tended that it was clear, under all the circumstances, that the plaintiff really intended to dispute the legality of the rate, and consequently that the defendant bad no jurisdiction, and had exceeded the powers confided to him by law. Mr. Baron PARKE then addressed the jury, and, after al luding to the act of Parliament, observed, that m his opinion the jury had only one question to decide—viz., whether at the time the plaintiff attended before the magistrates he had a real and Lona fide intention to dispute the validity of the rate. In his opinion the notice he had given the magistrates was not sufficient, and he thought the law required that a man should give them some reasons to satisfy them of his in tention. Because a man merely coose to say, " I dispute the rate," were the churchwardens to be baffled and com pelled to resort to an ecclesiastical court? He thought not. If it were so, the act of Parliament in question would be al most a dead letter. The jury immediately returned a verdict for the defendant. Baron PARKE, addressing the jury, said, that in case any of the points that bad been raised should be afterwards found available to set aside the verdict, it would be necessary that they should assess what damage they would give the plaintiff. The J ury—The very smallest amount, my lord. They then consulted a short time, and agreed to give the plaintiff ss. for his coal scuttle, in case the verdict should be disturbed. An application was then made respecting costs, when Ser geant CliA NNELL said, that if the plaintiff would undertake not to adopt any further proceedings in reference to the ver dict, he would pay his own costs. Baron PARKE said this was a very handsome proposal, and the plaintiff's counsel consenting to the arrangement, an un conditional verdict for the defendant was returned. A female named Driscoll, who was married only eight weeks ago, since which time she has made three attempts on her life, and on one occasion took poison, made another un successful attempt to destroy herself by throwing herself into the river at Shadwell early on Sunday morning, and was for tunately taken out alive. Previous to her marriage she was a frequent visitor of the twopenny concert-rooms, and since then has been very unsettled. On Saturday evening she gave her husband the slip, went to the Pavilion Theatre, and after stopping out all night attempted to drown herself.— Times. THE MURDER NEAR RUTHlN.—Edward Clubbe, aged 27, was arraigned at Ruthin on Friday last, for the wilful murder of Evan Evans, a gamekeeper of Edward Lloyd, Esq., on the 30th January last. The circumstances of the case appeared in all the papers at the time. The evidence against the prisoner was slight, and insufficient to convict him, had it not been backed by a curious confession he made to Mr. Joseph Peers, the clerk of the peace for Denbigh shire, two or three days previous to the trial. The jury found a verdict of guilty against the prisoner, and the judge passed sentence of death upon him. DOUBLE ESCAPES OF A SMASHER.—A MonERN JACK SurPrAnn.—Yesterday's Government Police Gazette con tains the following des cr ipti on o f a m an n amed James Dixon, who represented himself as an umbrella repairer, residing at Carlisle, Cumberland, and who has within the last three weeks twice effected his escape from the custody of the con stable of Masham, in Yorkshire, while under remand for fur ther examination, on a charge of having in his possession a quantity of counterfeit coin, and of uttering the same ; and also of felony. He was again apprehended on the 23d ult. by the constables of Stokesley, in the same county, and was again remanded for further examination on the same charges, when he again effected his escape about one or two o'clock on the morning of the 25th ult., by letting himself out of the window of his bed-room ; in doing which, it is supposed he must have received very great and serious injuries about his head or face, as he fell from a height of 20 feet ; and a very large quantity of blood, and some skin and hair, were found upon the stones below the window. He was traced by the blood nearly half a mile, when all further track was lost. When he escaped he had a handcuff on his left wrist, and a strong iron chain attached to it. MURDER AND DESPERATE CONFLICT.—On the evening of the 21th of March, two gentlemen. of the name of Sail lard, who had been called to Rouen on business, had alighted at Yvelot, at about nine o'clock, and were proceeding home wards with two young servants, who had come to meet them and carry their luggage, when, at no great distance from the house of M. Saillard, senior, and at about 100 yards from the house of one of the magistrates of Yvelot, the younger bro ther perceived something dark a few paces distant, and ad vanced towards it, when, on a sudden, he was seen to stagger backwards, mortally wounded in the breast by the discharge of a gun. The brother immediately rushed on the assassin, and a horrible conflict commenced. The eldest servant took to his heels, but the other, a lad of 15, came boldly forward, and laid hold of the barrel of the gun, which the murderer was directing against his master, and turned it aside, so that it went off without doing any injury. The struggle still con tinued, and numerous wounds were inflicted on M. Saillard by the assassin, who had found means to draw a dagger; but at last the villain was defeated, and thrown down by the ef forts of M. Saillard and his courageous servant. 'When the wretch was on the ground, M. Saillard despatched his ser ♦ant to an adjoining house, to obtain assistance to remove the miscreant ; but during the lad's absence M. Saillard, weakened by the loss of blood, was unable to keep down the murderer, who, by a desperate effort, released himself front his opponent's grasp, and effected his escape. In this horrid struggle M. Saillard received seven dangerous wounds. It is, however, expected that he will recover : his unfortunate brother is entirely given up by his medical attendants. There is some hope _that the assassin will not escape, as lie was obliged to leave behind him, in his hurry to make off, his gun, the handle of his dagger, v, hid; had broken in the strug gle, one of his shoes, and his cap.—French Paper. THE KNIFE AGAIN.—TWO YOUTHS STABBED IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL AT BROMPTON.—Since Wednesday last a report has prevailed in Brompton that one of the young gen tlemen at the Brompton Proprietary Grammar School had, in a fit of passion, stabbed two of his fellow scholars, one of whom still remains in a very dangerous state. The school in question consists of between 80 and 90 youths, and is situated in Alexander square, Brompton, the Rev. Robert Lamb being head master. The occurrence, it is understood, took place in the school-room during the hours of instruction on Wednesday morning, when, it appears, a youth, 12 years of age, named Richard Batley, the son of Mr. Batley, liveryman, opposite St. Peter's Church, Pimlico, was stabbed with a penknife, in the small of the back, by a youth three years his senior, named Taylor, whose parents reside at No. 15, Rawstorne-street, Montpelier-square, Knightsbridge. He also stabbed in the thigh a boy 12 years of age, named Nagle, residing at No. 26, Church-street, Chelsea, who endeavoured to prevent the injury on Batley. Immediately the circum stance became known to the Rev. Mr. Lamb ; he despatched a messenger for instant medical assistance, and in a few mi nutes Mr. Glen, surgeon, of Brompton-row, was in attend ance, when the wound on Batley, who bled profusely, was dressed, and he was taken home to his parents. The wound on the thigh of Nagle was, fortunately, but slight. Taylor was immediately sent home to his friends, with an intimation of what had taken place ; hut, at the same time, considerable surprise has been expressed that the managers of the school have not felt it their duty to communicate the occurrence to the magistrate of the Kensington police-court, in which dis trict it has taken place, that, should death ensue, the course of justice should not be frustrated by the escape of the de linquent, which had nearly been the case in a similar transaction at Hayes. RIPON.—EXTRAORDINARY CELESTIAL APPEARANCE.— On the night of Monday last, between half-past eight and ten o'clock, the heavens presented one of the most unusual aspects ever beheld by any one in this place. From what we have heard of lunar rainbows, we should say the phenomenon most resembled such an appearance. But how could the moon operate in producing such an effect, when her light was altogether absent? That luminary was just finishing her monthly circuit. A continued stream of light extended, nearly vertically, from one extremity of the horizon to the opposite one. Unlike the Northern Lights its direction was from east to west, as the wind in all probability, was a power ful agent in its production, and that at the time was, and had been during part of the afternoon, blowing from the west. Yet although in this important particular, dissimilar to the Aurora Borealis, the light, when most brilliant, bore a great resemblance to that beautiful object in its silvery whiteness. In breadth it appeared considerably to exceed the solar rain bow, and its edges were less r egu l ar l y d e fi ne d . B ut t hi s might be owing to its vertical position. A more splendid sight has seldom been witnessed. Its continuance might be for nearly half an hour, during which many were its ob servers in the city of Ripon, as doubtless they must have been elsewhere. From its greatest lustre it gradually waned away, and by ten o'clock not a vestige remained of this ex traordinary and interesting visitant. After its departure, the northern horizon presented the same bright appearance as it generally does after the prevalence of the Aurora Borealis ; as if that glittering display of celestial splendour had but re ceded within the borders of the opposite hemisphere. Many and various were the expressions of conjecture as to the im- portant events portended, and even the better informed por tion of spectators, divesting themselves of all superstitious feeling, could not but remark the ominous indication of pa=sing events in the east, as well as of the rumour of war with our transatlantic rivals in the opposite ditection.—Leeds Intelligeicer. CAPTAIN DOUGLAS.—At the levee on Thursday week, Captain Douglas, late commander of the Cambridge, mer chant ship, was presented to the Queen by Viscount Palmer ston, when her majesty was graciously pleased to co n f er on him the honour of knighthood. The case of Captain Dou glas is one of which this great maritime nation m a y we ll b e proud. He arrived at ,Sngapore the peaceful master of a merchant ship, but hearing there the condition in which Captain Eliot and other British officers in China were then placed by the oppressive conduct of the Chinese authorities at Canton, he at once got rid of his cargo, purchased some 32-pounders, doubled his crew, laid in a good store of ammu nition, and gallantly set sail for the Canton river ; and all this he did on his own personal responsibility. In his short passage from Singapore not a moment was lost in working his willing crew at the guns. He entered Canton river, cleared for action, and gallantly took his station inside the valuable fleet of British merchant ships there lying at an chor. There happened to be no vessel of war in the Canton river at that moment, but Captain Douglas was alone suffici ent to afford protection. He repelled all assaults,but he was unfortunately severely wounded in the attack upon the Chi nese junks at how-lane, on September 15th, 1839. Well, when British vessels of war did arrive, it necessarily followed that the gallant mission of Captain Douglas was at an end ; but we have not yet done with this Captain Douglas. On the arrival of the British vessels of war, he fell back into the merchant seaman, and proposals were actually made to him by some American captains for the purchase of his 32- pounders. " No," said Captain Douglas, " you want these , guns to sell them again to the Chinese ; but I'd rather send . them all overboard than sell you one of them." We need. scarcely add, that Captain Douglas has already been reim bursed for the expenses he incurred in the public service,, we trust there is truth in the report that both he and his gal lant crew have, moreover, received a handsome gratuity from her majesty's government.— Observer. EXTRAORDIN AY MURDER.—A murder, a ttended witls some extraordin ar y c i rcumstances, h as l a t e ly been perpetrated , in the commune of Pomarede. A farmer named Filhol cul tivated a farm at Cassaignes, which was extensive enough to require the assistance of two or three labourers. For some little time past he has suspected that a criminal intimacy was carried on between one of his men and his wife, but either through indecision or fear be adopted no measures in con. sequence. The insolence of the servant, however, became get ed his onhis so intolerable that he felt compelled to put a stop to it, as it horse, head, c u , t e n ai cl was but too evident that the man was encourage pa d i: b d yh hi i as s sbo n b li ed s e — :., tress, A few days since he had m lna preparations r a cg d oe e :moiundd, tifl i. inflicted by, . b a s; journey, and went into his stable to coming out for some time s search was mai s i l e i , s awabslufnotuhnedavcyovienrsetdruwwi:lnit,stirvaaws ;:eatreceiv several others of less extent on his face. thrown on the servant, who has SUPPLE M,E /... _,G 1, -