The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1851-08-19 00:00:00

SOUTH LANCASHIRE ASSIZES The Commission for the southern division of this county was opened on' Wednesday last, in tha Crown Court. Mr. Byron Platt and Mr. Jurtice Williams being unable to attend in time to open the commission, Mr. Bliss, Q.C., was deputed to undertake that duty. He arrived about four o'clock, and immediately proceeded to the Crown Court, where, the usual form having been tone through, the court was adjourned until Thursday morning, at twelve o'clock. CROWN COURT -THURSDAY The Jud Church, wi Sumner, s 1 service at St. Georee's a sermon was preached by the Rev. Mr. tended Divin Shortly alter twelve o'clock. Mr. Baron Platt took his seat on the bench, when the following gentlemen were Sworn on the GRAND JURY , TL: e Hazles, Foreman Sir T. Bernard Bir, , Eq., Ilan Samuel Bright, E;(i., Sar „ . „ ..... Jos. Brotherton, Eq., M.I Wm. Brown. E , q., M P., Ric:mond-huh Henry Bury, Eq., M James Pitcairn Camp) Thos. Cron!;, E=q , P Edmund Grundy. E Brotditon, Salford A., Liverpool 1., Bridge-hall. am Harter, Esq., lope-hall. Honry, Esq., M P..W saw, Esq., M.P., Manchester. ty, Esq., Victoria-park Edw. Rvloy Lang Wort Harold Litt Esc Liscard-hall Edw. Lloyd, Eq., Pr Thos. Redick. , I Wm. Neild, Manchester_ Fred. Percival, E-q., Manchester John Rosson. E-q , Moor-hall. Clement Royals, Esq., Monntfalinee_ Jos. Brooks Yates, Esq., West Dingle_ The proclamation against vice and immorality having been read, h-lodg 001. His LORDSHIP proceeded to charge the Grand Jury. He said it became his painful duty to discuss the calendar --a more atrocious one than which, in the course of his experience, he never saw. He found in it crimes of fraud and violence as various as the law described. He found forgeries, commercial frauds, offences under the head of fraudulent evasions of the law, cutting and stab bing—t hat most un-English of offences. He found the crime of arson, the crime of rape, and criminal knowledge of children under ten years of age. He found the crime of manslaughter, and standing out in great prominence the crime of murder. It seemed to baffle all the calcu lations that benevolent and philosophic men had drawn from the tables which had been properly made annually in this country, for the purpose not only of discovering the number of persons who had broken the law, but if possible of discovering the source from which criminality flowed, in order that crime might be prevented before its commission. And it had been seen from those tables, travelling over a space of no less than thirteen years, that the want of education stood as a mark upon crime, for it had been found invariably during those twelve years that the totally illiterate and the partialiy educated together formed nine out of ten throughout the calendar, showing that ignorance and crime were intimately connected. But he found in this part of the county of Lancaster that education had not had a very salutary effect, for he found here,—whereas, as he had already stated, that throughout the country ignorant persons were criminals in the proportion of nine to one--that in this calendar, consisting of 123 prisoners, there were 18 who could read and write well, and six of a superior education, bringing the proportion down to three or four to one, and diminish ing, of course, to the same amount, the proportion in favour of education. Thus, they observed, that IS and 6 made 24—that was 24 educated persons out of 123. That was very striking. 1 here must be some cause for it. Was it a lax mode of conducting trace in this great trading portion of the island ? Was it a want of moral feeling in the conduct of trade ? Was it a want of care which was exhibited as to the morals of the persons who so There must be something was a source from which rai Jle inference to the con clusions of sow very wise men on this subject, that education, unl it be moral and religious, was ' , I acquirement to man. of stabbing ; there might receiv 'some education ? wrone in this ; or it might be it they might draw a %Try . farourat rather a IT pus than a u There were no less than nir laughter, involv ing the lives of twenty-five of her Majesty's subjects. In one case nine lives were sacrificed ; and added to that there were seven cases of murder. There was one case in the last class to which he had alluded, that of murder, upon which it would be necessary he should say a few words. On reading the depositions in the case there certainly appeared to him to be reason to suppose that the unhappy woman who was charged with the murder of her children, was at the time an incompetent agent ; but if the case was brought before them, and they were satisfied the act was committed by her hand, notwithstanding what they had heard about the state of her mind, that had better be left to the consideration of the jury here, because on an acquittal from that crime proper care might be taken of her hereafter; and therefore, if they were satisfied that this person had destroyed her children, although she was insane, it would be their duty to find the bill. There was another case of a class which had disgraced this country ; a case of domestic treachery by the administration of arsenic, whores member of the fatiiily in whom the high est confidence was placed, in offering food she gave the means of death—when offering the cup of comfort she offered that by whi c h lif e m i g h t b e d estroye d . They _l_ 1 • I were no less t n seve snouui be cautious in connexion with these matters, be. cause it seldom happened that a suspicion of this kind fell upon an individual of having committed so great ar, atrocity, but public feeling was excited ; it went head. long away, without having proper premises from which to draw conclusions. The jury were to protect such per- They would_pioperly sift the case, to see whether tor charging this offence ; and, if they s a ground fur inquiry, they ought to There was d with the wilfu r duty to tr __ another case, where a mothe murder of her child by cru len), that if a course of ern ed or revenge—they ought to n mind— thought th find the b char , it bein and it cc re adopt as might be Calcu lated to destroy life, in the event of death ensuing from that usage, the party inflicting it was guilty of the crime of murder. They had a case of that kind, and it would be for them to consider whether the party fell within the definition he had stated to them ; and if she did, it would be their duty also to find the bill. The grand jury then retired to their chamber. Wiitiarn Potter, convicted at the last assizes of steal pm a counting-house at I been respited, ges upon a point of law ing a quantity of copper money St. Helens, pending th ion oftliej but in wh . .1 s first placed at the bar. His lord. ship informed him that the point in question had been decided against him, and sentenced him to 18 months' imprisonment and hard labour. VITRIOL THROWING Al MANCHESTER Harper, a man in an advanced stage of con surnption, indicted for having, on the 24th of April last thrown a quantity or vitriol upon the person and clothe of Agnes Innes, with intent to do her grievous bodil harm, was acquitted. .John ill`Dougall was n, .‘.l for assaulting and rob bins George Hobson, on thi, night of th- 18th of March at Manchester. The proseeuto. at Sheffield, whilst proceeding to his 10, _..gs in Lever -street, -ter, on the night in question, was accosted by a io took hold of him, and brought him into an 4 , -ied to get away, and whilst trying to do so -.mil and another man came up, struck ' , non, and held him whilst the - , reigns and £3 in silver. Manel female him and female ro The priso i him of ,s found Green. 21 was a cutl us conviction entenced to ten WITH INTENT TO ROB found guilty ar FRI DAY Rebecc ', 19, were eon went, with 31X O'C at oil the bench at nine o'clock TTER ROBBERIES FROM THIS LIVERPOOL. POST- OFFICE. Rickard Bamber, a youth aged 15 years, pleaded guilty a post let ter on the 26th of March, and another h of April, the property of the postmaster s prisoner was also charged with having stolen on the bank notes for £lO, the property of Wil ce deferred. m Knov V AT MANCHESTER. 'oberts and Patrick 211' Gee, labourers, wen ► burglarinusly entering the house of Mr Richan BURGL `louse, of Mercer-street, Manchester, on the of April, and stealing a quan- Id bed clothes. The prisoners Chas. White night of Sat urc tity of wearing apparel entered the lay, 01 ring the temporary absence of the inmates, and were observed running off with a bundle. One of them was caught just as he was leaving the house, and the other a short time afterwards. Mr. Ashheton Croft appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Monk for the prisoner M*Gee, on whose behalf several witnesses were called, who stated that he was in his own house at half past nine on the evening on which he was stated to have committed the robbery. His Lordship having summed up, the jury found both prisoners guilty; and, by order of the court, the parents of M'Gee and a lodger in their --- 9 taken into custody for perjury. Three pre victions for felony against IVl‘Gee were then recorded, and a paper was handed to the judge, signed by several persons, giving Roberts G a character f or goo d con duct. The prisoner AP wastransported for seven years, and Roberts sentenced to be imprisoned, with hard labour, for six calendar months. • ASSAULT AND ROBBERY AT SALFORD. William Wilson, 32, charged with having assaulted and robbed Joseph Burns Normanton, a professor of music, resident in Manchester, on the evening of the 30th May, was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment. FIRING A HAYRICK. William Edwards, a lad 16 years of age, pleaded guilty to setting fire to a stack of hay, the property of John Newton, at Bold, in April last. The prisoner stated his object in committing the offence was to get into prison, as. he was far from his friends, and did not know what to do. Mr. Pewliston, draper, Wrexham, with whom Ed wards lived as assistant, and Mr. Williamson, draper, with whom he served an apprenticeship before he went to Mr. Pewliston, gave the prisoner a very high character, the former offering to take him back, if acquitted. Sentence deferred. BOILER. FXPLOSION AT MANCHESTER Thomas Williamson and Thomas Egerton were charged with haring, on the 25th of March, caused the death of Timothy O'Neil and eight other persons, by wilful negli gence in the management of a steam boiler. Mr. Monk and Mr. Pollock appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Seger for the defence. it appeared that the prisoner Williamson was the lessee of certain premises in Riga-street, Manchester, in which was placed a high-pressure boiler, of 25 horse power, for the purpose of working some circular saws. The other prisoner, Eger- ton, was his engineer. There had been reason to suspect that the engine had frequently ')cen short of water, and the prisoner Egerton had been accused by his master of neglecting his duty, and had, in fact, got notice that he would be discharged. On the 25th of March, Ire "parked," that is, tightened with tow, the cylinder on the top of the boiler, in doing which he was assisted by several of the srwyers. He afterwards attempted to get the engine to move, but his efforts were unrvailing ; he also attempted to move the fly wheel arid the piston roil, hut failed in getting the engine to work. At this time a blue glimmer was noticed to proceed from the boiler. The engine ought to have been started at two o'clock, but nothing could be done with it till nearly three, when the explosion took place. When Egerton was spoken to about the engine he said he would not have so many masters, and shortly before the boiler exploded, he said, " there's no steam by -, its a case." Several witnesses were called, who proved the facts of the case, all agreeing that the cause of the accident was a deficiency of water in the boiler, which was stated to be very defective in con struction. Williamson at this part of the trial was discharged, and after an address from Mr. Wheeler, and an elaborate summing up from the judge, the jury found the prisoner Egerton guilty. Sentence deferred. The court rose at twenty minutes past seven. C5O, £2, THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD, TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 1851. He thought the mother somewhat to blame. She was aware of these meetings from time to time, and if she had acted properly she ought to have prevented them meeting except at the church door, when the marriage was to take place. Looking at all the circumstances, the jury would have to say what damages the plaintiff was entitled to recover, leaving out the circumstances of the birth of the child, which was not an ingredient in the present case. The JUDGE observed that, however the jury might think the defendant had brought disgrace on the plaintiff's family, or degradation on herself, they could not give damages on that ground. They must compensate the plaintiff for what she had suffered in her feelings by the young man not having married her—her loss of health, and the difference in her worldly position, between being the wife of a man well off, having an ironmonger's shop, and in the condition he left her when the breach of pro mise took place. • -- The jury, after consulting for a few minutes, returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, £350. DOE DEM. MILNE v. BlRCH.—Verdict taken by con sent for the plaintiff, subject to a reference. BURY AND ANOTHER (ASSIGNEES) v. PETRIE.—The plaintiffs were assignees of the estate of J. L. Horrocks, a bankrupt, and the defendant a merchant in Liverpool. The action was to recover a sum of £270 155., which the plaintiffs alleged was received by the defendant under such circumstances as to entitle the plaintiffs to recover it for their use as representatives of the estate of the bankrupt. Mr. Atherton for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Knowles for the defence. Several witnesses were called, and the main qnestion, which was one of law, was argued by the opposing counsel. Verdict for the plaintiffs for the amount claimed, and leave given to the defendant to move the court above. The court adjourned shortly before six o'clock. FRIDAY Mr. Justice Williams took his seat at nine o'clock. Mr. Sergeant Wilkins moved for immediate execution in the case tried on Thursday, wherein £350 damages were recovered for a breach of promise of marriage. Order granted. ARTHUR V. PEDDER.—A HORSE CASE. This was an action brought by Colonel Arthur, of the 3rd Dragoons, to recover the sum of £2BO from the defen dant, Mr. Charles Pedder, formerly a cornet in that regi ment, but now a lieutenant in the 39th. From the statement of Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, on the part of the plaintiff, it appeared that early in May last the defendant mentioned to Mrs. Arthur his desire to purchase a pair of very handsome carriage horses from the colonel, which the latter, after much hesitation, agreed to, for the sum claimed in the action. No sooner, however, had the bargain been concluded, than the colonel offered £5 to rescind it. At the time of sale it was proposed that the horses, which were called respectively Governor and Gaoler, should be examined by a veterinary surgeon, and the defendant at first named a Mr. Lawson, but subse quently changed his mind, and took them upon his own judgment. He then sent them to London, where they were kept three weeks, and on application being made for payment, Cornet Pedder stated that they had not yet been exarnined t but would cause it to be immediately done, and would forthwith remit the amount. Subsequently, a cor respondence took place, and a veterinary surgeon having certified that the horses were unsound, the defendant refused payment, and the plaintiff declined to receive them back, on the ground that he did not warrant them, that the defendant had adopted them as his own, and that they had been driven about London bystrangers. Evidence was adduced for the plaintiff, in which Mr. Shaw, the veterinary surgeon of the regiment, stated that in 1848, or 1849, one of the horses, at least, was unsound, and that some damage existed also at the time of the sale, though the horse would stand a certain amount of work in London harness, when relieved of weight. Mr.WATSON addressed the jury for the defendant, con tending that, at the time of sale, the unsoundness of the horses being known to Mrs. and Col. Arthur, and their not having communicated it to the defendant, constituted what the law called fraud in covenant ; and he condemned, in strong terms, the colonel in taking what he (Mr. Wat son) termed an undue advantage of the defendant's youth, the latter having only been appointed to the regiment in 1848, while the colonel had been in the service for twenty years. It was the duty of the colonel and Mrs. Arthur, knowing this fact, to have communicated it to thedefendant. Henry Johnson, a groom to Mr. Pedder, deposed that at the time he fetched away the horses, after their purchase by his master, Mrs. Arthur asked him if he was about to take the horses to London ; and, on being told that he was, to her telling him that, into whosoever's charge he left then, to request them to have the horses shod pre cisely in the same way as they were then shod, their shoes being on leather, otherwise they would knock their legs and feet all to pieces, as their action was very high. Mr. William Field and Mr. Cherry, two London vete rinary surgeons, deposed that they had examined the horses, and that one of them was labouring under a chronic lameness, which might have existed for many weeks. Mr. Sergeant WiLiculs replied on the part of the plain tiff, eliciting much merriment by the following couplet, in relation to the defendant : " Pity the sorrows of a poor young man, who's suffered heavy losses, By pleasui•ing about the town, and buying showy haws." The colonel did not want to sell the horses, and it was only at the defendant's entreaty that he was induced to part with them at all. Lieut. Pedder had seen them at work for years ! he had 'seen them on the tan, with their legs blistered, and had made inquiries of the veterinary surgeon • and, well knowing what they w ere , h a d agree d to give die price now sought to be recovered, before the expiry of the month of May ; yet, although told a day or two after tht, horses arrived in London, that they were lame. he did not call Mr. Field in until the 9th June. The jury returned a verdict for the amount claimed. BABY V. NICHOLSON. Undefended cause on a bill of exchange for £360. Verdict for plaintiff. SCLIOLEFIF:LD V. DROWN This was an action of ejectment, brought to recover pos session, from the defendant, of a public-house in Oldham. Verdict for the plaintiff. HINCHLIFFE, JUN., V. REID The plaintiff is a cotton-spinner, at Hollinwood, near Manchester ; the defendant carries on business as a dyer. in Manchester; and the present action had been brought to recover the sum of £127 10s., the price of 240 bales of cotton yarn delivered by the plaintiff. It appeared that the plaintiff employed an agent named Hardy, who, in the month of April last, was in negotiation with Mr. Joseph Stelfox for the sale of some 40's double yarn ; and Hardy, after declining to deal with Stelfox on his (Stelfox's) own account, agreed to sell and deliver to the defendant the goods referred to in the declaration. On the 19th of April 130 bundles were delivered at the defendant's pre mises, and a delivery note given for them ; the remaining 110 bundles being sent in on the 3d of May, when the defendant's bookkeeper wrote on the delivery book, " On account of Joseph Stelfox, completing the order of 240 bundles."—The plaintiff denied that he had sold the goods to Stelfox on his (Stelfox's) own account, and Mr. Hardy immediately made out an invoice in Mr. Reid's name, and took the same to his office. The defendant's bookkeeper then said they had never ordered any yarn from Hinchliffe, but that they had bought 240 bundles from Stelfox, for which they had settled by a contrary account, and that Mr. Stelfox still owed Mr. Reid about £2oo.—His Lord ship said there was no doubt that Stelfox sold on his own account, but the question was, did he do so with the con sent of the plaintiff.—The jury stopped the case, and found a verdict for the plaintiff. TONGS V. NELSON AND ANOTHER. This was an action arising out of the disputed validity of a will.—Verdict for the defendant. The court rose at a little before eight o'clock. SATURDAY. DONALDSON V. MACKENZIE Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Monk were for the plaintiff; and Mr. Hugh Hill, Q.C., and another learned gentleman for the defendant. This was an action brought against the defendant, an official assignee of the Manchester District Court of Bankruptcy, for the recovery of a sum of £74, under the following singular circumstances :—The plaintiff was a hawker of tea and drapery, and one of that class known as " travelling Scotchmen." A few months since, one David Douglas, pursuing a similar vocation, was found by the police in a state of intoxication, and con %eyed to a station-hou3e in Manchester, where he was searched, and a parcel containing the sum of £74 was found upon him. Inspector Sawley, , having heard of this circumstance, and knowing that Douglas had, a short time since, been a bankrupt, and was still uncertificated, immediately communicated tbo fact to Dr. Mackenzie, the defendant, who therefore sent and took pun.t.ooion of the parcel containing the money. Douglas asserted at the times that the money belonged to a friend of his, who had entrusted Mtn to deposit it in the bank, and by whom the present action was brought for its restoration, as it not being the bank rupt's own money, it was not therefore liable to be seized on behalf of his creditors, under the fiat. Douglas was' called, and stated that the money had been handed to him by the plaintiff, whom he had known for many years, to invest in the bank for safety, in con sequence of a robbery and murder having been committed in the neighbourhood in which the plaintiff was staying, which had impressed him with fear. He underwent a lengthened cross-examination by Mr. Hill, and prevari cated in so great a degree, as to induce the learned Judge to threaten, on several occasions, to commit him, if he persisted. Witnesses were called for the defendant, whose evi dence, on one or two points, contradicted that of Douglas. Mr. Sergeant WILKINS, in reply, implored the jury to pause before they imputed fraud to one man and perjury to another, and send them forth into the world so branded. The learned JUDGE having summed up in a minute and impartial manner, the jury retired, and after an absence of three hours returned a verdict for the defendant. THE EAST LANCASHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY V. ETTEN FIELD This was an action brought by the East Lancashire Railway Company against the defendant, a land agent, to recover the sum of £lOO, being the deposit money paid by the company's agent to the defendant in the treaty for the purchase of some cottage property in Coronation street, Salford. Mr: Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Segar appeared for the Company, and Mr. Atherton, Q.C., and Mr. Monk for the defendant. It appeared frcm the statement of the learned counsel, and the evidence adduced, that the defendant had been on various occasions, in January last, in treaty with a Mr. Turtill for the purchase of some houses belonging to the latter. These negociations were represented by the de• fendant to be carried: on oa behalf of a Mr. George Brad shaw (the compiler of the Railway Guide), but in reality they ware on behalf of the. Railway Company. Mr. Ads head, the agent for the company, agreed to purchase this property at a sum of £2,500. At this time the defendant stated that he had authority to sell the property for £2,000, when, in fact, at that time he had no such authority, as Mr. Turtill had stated he would not take less than £2,600. On the 9th of January the de fendant agreed with Mr. Adshead for the sale of the property to the company for £2600. The defendant met Mr. Turtill at a sale-room in Manchester, and they went out together, accompanied by Mr. Turtill's nephews, to the Gibraltar Tavern. The defendant produced some papers, and after having agreed to give £2600, he said, " Turtill you must come down in your price ;" you talked the other day about 8 per cent., which amounted to £2400; cottage property is a drug in the market, and I understand you are going to America, therefore you had better con. sent to take £2400." He at length prevailed upon Turtill to take £2200, having received authority from the Company to give £2600. The defendant said he did not wish to charge him commission, but would be satisfied with all he could obtain beyond the £2200. These terms were at length agreed to. Upon the 9th January, having previously agreed with Mr. Adshead for £2600 the defendant produced a written agreement for the , sale at £2200, or such other sum as he should agree upon, for Mr. Turtill's execution. A short period after this agreement had been signed, Mr. Turtill heard th ,t the defendant had been making in quiries respecting some property belonging to a Mr. Royle, and, therefore, suspected that he had been treat ing for the railway company; and upon questioning the defendant, he admitted it ; and that Mr. Bradshaw had only lent his name to the company. On the Bth January, an agreement had been entered into with Mr. Adsheal and the defendant for the purchase of this property for £2,600. This agreement was not executed until some days afterwards, as the solicitor of the company required him to produce proof of his agency to carry out the offer, whereupon he produced a written authority from Mr. Turtill, in which the price was not mentioned. The agreement having been signed, Adshead paid the defendant £lOO. which was the subject of the present action. The defendant subsequently went to Mr. Turtill and requested him to deliver up the title deeds of the property. Mr. Turtill refused to comply, because the defendant had represented to him that he was about to purchase the property for Mr. Bradshaw, when, in fact, he was doing so on behalf of the railway company In consequence of this refusal, on the part of Mr. Turtill, the solicitor to the Company called upon him, and ultimately drew up an agreement, which was executed on the 14th January. Upon Mr.Turtill perusing this agreement, he saw that the property had been sold to the Company for £2,600, and this, as he alleged, after the defendant had told him that he could get for it no more than £2,200. Mr. Turtill then repudiated the negociation with the-defendant, stat ing that he should deal with the Company himself. The Company finally agreed to give the sum of £2,400; Turtill relinquishing his claim to the £lOO. On the part of the plaintiffs it was contended that the transaction was fraudulent, and such as they were not bound to carry out, and therefore they demanded from the defendant the deposit money of £lOO, which the defendant had received from their agent, and which they maintained the defendant had received for their use. Mr. ATHERTON and Mr. MONK contended that there was no privity between the parties to the agreements; that the privity of contract lay between the defendant and Mr. Turtill, by whom the action ought to have been brought. A long and technical discussion ensued on this point, after which the learned Judge put it to the jury whether the agreements were obtained by fraud. The jury appeared to think they were, and immediately re turned a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed. YESTERDAY. WHITWORTH V. THE MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND LANCASHIRE RAILWAY COMPANY. Mr. Hugh hill, Q.C., and Mr. Bernie appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Watson, Q.C., and Mr. Monk for the defendants. This was an action which had been originally brought for the recovery of £652 3s. Id., being a balance of an account for goods sold and delivered, and also for the recovery of £261 15e 3d. for interest to the present time. The sum of £626 6s. 9d. had been paid into court, leaving a balance of £25 16s. 4d. upon the goods account. The defendants denied their liability, and also for the pay ment of interest. The plaintiff was a manufacturer of engineers' tools, carrying on business in Manchester, and had on various occasions supplied the defendants with goods. On one occasion the Company were not ready to receive them on account of the incomplete state of thrtir works, and they allowed them to remain on the premises of the plaintiff. Notice was served on the Company, requesting them to take them away, and some time afterwards the Company sent for the tools. During the time the tools were so lying in the plaintiff's ware house another order was sent and goods supplied, and no complaint was made. In the course of the correspond ence which had taken place, no objections had been made to the payment of interest, which had been mentioned. The defendants now refused to pay interest, and it was contended, on:the part of the plaintiff,that interest accrued subsequently to the commencement of the action. Mr. WATSON contended that there was no proof of Mr. Peacock's authority to give the orders for the tools : that in order to bind the Company the contract should have been under their common seal, and that there was no act done on the part of the company rendering themselves legally liable for the payment of the interest, which was the main point of dispute, and that by virtu e o f th e s t a t u t e interest did not accrue subsequent to the action. The Learned JUDGE asked the jury whether they thought the plaintiff was entitled to interest by virtue of the terms of the correspondence, to which they replied in the affirmative, and found a ver di ct f or the amount claimed, leave being given to the defendants tD move the court above on any point• that tliey might thick expedient. OGDEN V. HILTON AND OTHERS.—TRESPASS. The ATTORNEY GENERAL stated the plaintiff's case, and Mr. Serjcant Wilkins defended. The plaintiff had resided some years in Ciiatterton, in a tenement belong ing to Abraham Hilton, and having married his daughter became entitled in her right to a share of the property. A short time since, the plaintiff was forcibly ejected from the house by the defendants, which trespass was the cause of the present action. After some discussion, during which it appeared that there was no actual dispute as to the title, both sides consented to withdraw a juror. HAYES V. WILLIAMS.—THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS -TiliS was an action to recover payment of a promissory note for £lOO, made as far back as the year 1839. In order to prevent the operation of the statute of limitations, the plaintiff sought to establish the payment of interest within the six years. Witnesses on both sides were examined ; and the jury, after a few minutes' consultation, returned a verdict for the plaintiff. GARLYSTIGSRY V. ALEXANDER. Mr. Hoggins, Q.C., and Mr. Jones were for the plain tiff; and Mr. Temple for the defendant. This action was brought to recover the sum of £126 155., being the ba lance of a debt of £244 155., for goods supplied by the plaintiff, a merchant of Liverpool, to the defendant, a shipowner, of Cumberland. It appeared that defendant ordered a large quantity of hardware of the plaintiff, to be exported in his vessel, the Ann Falknen, to South America, and it was contended, on the part of the plaintiff, that he was to be paid at the time of deli very, partly in cash, and partly by an acceptance at four months' date. The defendant contended that the "acceptance" was not to be a negotiable intruments but only by way of security, that the plaintiff had agreed to await the result of the voyage for payment for the goods, and which, if unsold, were to be exchanged for others. Evidence of a contradictory nature was gone into at great length, and the learned counsel having addressed the jury they retired, and had not delivered their verdict when the court rose. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. FRIDAY - . SHOP ROBBERY.-A lad, named Lawrence Johnson, was committed for trial for having stolen two pairs of trouseis from the shop of Mr. Morris, in Scotland-road. A BRUTAL HUSBAND.—John Kennedy, who keeps a marine store in the neighbourhood of Sefton-street, was charged with a brutal assault upon his wife. A police-officer, in conse quence of information he had received on the preceding even ing, went into the prisoner's house, where he found the wife insensible and bleeding. Kennedy, on the appearance of the officer, left his wife and attacked him. Fined or two months' imprisonment. THE FRACAS IN LACE-STREET.-401111 Savage and his wife applied to Mr. Mansfield for a summons against the Rev. Charles Cooke, one of the clergymen attached to the Chapel of the Holy Cross, for an assault committed by the priest on the complainant. The magistrate, having heard the statement made by Savage, granted, the summons gratis. It appears that Savage—who is an artizan, on "tramp," and who has recently come from London—took up his lodging, with his wife, at a house in Lace-street, on Tuesday night. On the following morning, about eleven o'clock, the Rev. Mr. Cooke came to the house (which is occupied by Roman Catholics), in the course of his ministrations; and, as alleged by the complainant, struck him on learning that he was not a Roman Catholic. A row ensued; and Wright, the keeper of the Rose-bill station, WHO twn other officers, had the greatest difficulty in protecting the complainant from the violence of the mob. From Lace-street to Marybone the people had assembled in thousands. A cry arose that the priest had been stabbed; upon this a rush was made upon the police, and an attempt to drag Savage away, who was struck two or three times. The mob continued to shout and yell, threatening to tear the complainant to pieces ; but be was ultimately securely lodged in bridewell, under the protection of the police. The mob, in the meantime, returned to the house in Lace-street, and destroyed everything there belonging to Savage. STOLEN WATCHES.—PaImer, one of the Birmingham detec tive officers, stated that on Monday, the 4th instant, he saw a man known to hint as one of a notorious gang called the " Thompson-street gang," in New-street, Birmingham. He followed the man, and saw him receive a small parcel at the Post office. Palmern at once apprehended him, and found that lie had just received a small box containing a gold watch, directed to James Turner;' but Palmer stated that the man's name was Carrol. On inquiry, Palmer found that the watch had been sent from Liverpool, and, with the assistance of the police here, the owner was traced, and be came down from London to give evidence in the case. The gentleman, whose name is Hughes, stated that he was in Liverpool on the night of the Ist instant, and went to the Amphitheatre ; on his return to his hotel, the George, he discovered that he had been robbed—his watch guard had been cut, and the watch stolen. Mr. Mansfield told Palmer that the Birmingham police ought to take care of their own thieves, and directed him to return to Birmingham with the case. . AN INGENIOUS THIEF.—Hugh Owens was charged with stealing a coat and a satin neck-tie, under the following sin gular circumstances :—On the night of Saturday, the2d instant, a woman and a girl went into the shop of Mrs. Jones, woollen draper, Dale-street, inquired the price of some barragan, and left the shop. Soon after, the prisoner Owens came in; he feigned to be a foreigner, and with apparent difficulty made the person in the shop comprehend that he wanted a neck handkerchief. A box, containing six neck-ties was placed before him, but they were not of a right pattern; and, being unable to describe the peculiar style of neck•tie suited to his looks, the foreigner, by this time enraged at the obtuseness of the English, took off his jacket, which he opened upon a new coat which was lying on the counter,- and with great impatience pointed to the lining of hisjacket as the identical patterwbe wanted the handkerchi e f of, land then indignantly walked out of the shop, hastily snatching up his jacket from the counter. The man had not left thee , shop long before it was found that, in carried Off tbe the heat of his passion most - probably, lie had . 3 . _ . .he new coat with his jacket, and what wai most surprt_iall!_ rejected necktie had vanished as well. Owens must h_r s l t i t if covered his mistake on his arrival home, for he intor„ j o a. sent his daughter out to pledge his coat at Hayman ' r r o aCe broker's shop, Whitechapel. Owens, who professes topdoctcb the very opposite vocations of boiler maker and quack was committed to prison for two months. Or tel E XTENSIVE ROBBERY OF PAFER.—Joseph in the employ of Mr. Wade, paper-dealer, Canning-Pla u o pot charged with steali ng u p war d s o f 30 reams o f paper, two: 4 o bags, a qua n tity o f canvas, &c., valued at £l6 or di - Id t d e , his employer. Mr. Wade did not miss the propertY tective Police-officer Marks called upon him, and ask eo f he had mis se d any paper from his warehouse, when, oPF e n d the astmreineta,tilovnh,ohies d in isc t o i v ie ere h d ,ib t i l t m o t f h p e ri h n a t d in , g and accompa nied officer to Mr. Heath's, the Colosseum music-saloon , Pat the premises, and there found 23 reams of pap l e i r is , fled as his propel ty. Air. Heath stated that the?til.ineed him some samples of paper (about the 16th o t 0. and he (Mr. Heath) then gave him an order for several Ta l e which were delivered and paid for. From that timelv, present he gave the prisoner various orders, which w er e,, wise delivered and paid for. The receipts were alwaysZeil in the name of Warburton. S. Kiernan em loved bY `, psi witness as a printer and money-taker at the Colosse°_"' s btea known the prisoner a number of years, who lately repTl :s ep) . to him that he received the paper in lieu of wages from 0 04 plover; and if he (Kiernan) could assist him in disposin , . sro kr lie would allow him a commission. Witness accord to Mr. Heath on the subject, and was told to infortn i T,Ati soner to leave samples. Witness afterwards left 31r. ,7 1i iel employ, and gave the prisoner an order for a ream of 0 . 1 ;40 double-crown paper for his own use, for which he ProL nj a i e id pay 12s. 6d.; only used five quires of it, and sold the rel", jo tor portion of it (15 quires) to Mr. Taylor, printer, of Nor t ,_,"„ a tlll street, for Bs. 6d. Witness has since returned to Mr, r.`, whichown bills e il u d e " e r l t be establishment. The prisoner was committed for tri al a n • sessions. h R a E l l l l , Y els O l F un A an 7 w ß i s io E. B — po J k o e se E p:: .g % li ' s ic h k s e o rs ba sv d a l Wm. Jones, a seaman, was committed to prison torsi/tl, for stealing a pair of boots from a vessel in one of the dot7it) charM,eg stealing a purse, containing .61 4s , from the person of j ;: ter' Jones, R'B preter was found necessary. The prisoner's employer, Ito; and patten-maker, gave him a good character, and the ° sod •ty. trate stated that, as there was a doubt as to his identi es t!ti none of the missing money found upon him, although " I 'd Id die' at the moment the alleged robbery took place, he WO charge him. that an cog TU. be. John Dawkins, lat e SA tax-col ßDAY lector at Tranmere, b ae 0 30 .,nt arrested at at the suit of the Crown, as defaulter to the • of .t'l66 7s. Bd. He has been lodged in Chester Castle. STABBING BY A WOMAN.—A woman of bad charaeter , n a gin Hannah Lind, was charged with a savage assault ur t he named Mary Toole. It appeared that on the Ist insi - gerser women quarrelled at Mr. Hudson's public-house' and street; the prisoner followed the girl into Park-lane l'll B bed her with a penknife in the face, shoulders and hen, u b • a sle,e r girl has been in the Southern Hospital ever since, and or VP' the sight of one of her eyes. Prisoner was committed , at the assizes. $ „, STREET FRAUDS.—A man of sailor-like appears rt short stiff beard, named Daniel Tobin, was brought uP with obtaining money by false pretences. The comPloo o . were three rustic boys, who had arrived in a cheat' e t e y lOC train from Preston. In passing along Dale-stree t h ey accosted by the prisoner, who induced them to accoraP:„dzer to a public-house to bargain for a real "China silk niZiotai chief." The man said the price of the article was four L. ill, but the boys could not muster tliht much moue)! a " o tbvi them. The fellow, who it appears was accompanied ilt. not man, then asked the boys to see how much they had Poo of them emptied all the money he had, fourteenPenc e ' bo cap, and it was immediately seized by the prisoner, n ',. b ief Io seated the lad with a highly glazed cotton handkeruto pan_ exchange. The other boys could not be prevailed ull o °„ ce tbr with their money. Complaint being made to the PZ e llt.: prisoner was taken into custody and conveyed bel ro r Mansfield. Mr. Dowling said there was a gang ° f tom fifty fellows of thi s d escr i ption, who prowled about tL e a giel, and stood at the corner o f streets in order to defraud s.,.';':doels out of their mo ne y, under pretence of selling silk handa u ` and foreign cigars. The prisoner was remanded. CHESHIRE AND NORTH WAL ES. 21 e j On Tuesday morning, Harriet Lawningtou, years, residing in Oliver -street, Birkenhead, died suu",, - 0 0e0 morning a om B v r i e n n r v i. g e n cutting their corn early last week, the late fine we-- -01 11 ' The grand jury of the Cheshire Assizes, in acco with a commendable custom in this county, °roe' j r gr a i l ynGr f d a are r iynr m eedrd e r r ioin s td I, i rs n oetfa t . h dßl e yijrafkoreryn:he Hundredsi sickle i f e Wirralsooner for an improvement in the m is a w c Ca h past eight on Tuesday morning last. tet t dlf e c d l i al e r eb t ay h n d motion from steam-engines or other motive powers -- ki Lathom,rNN C k o : sivae William et situatetta c A n o ' r d u t o ep n N ioadn . n — o dws T , the construction of rudders for richvesses. di h n, u eh r r c ay h s , ftoark :on m Chester,omtt at • t J ani consecrated by the Bishop of Chester this day (F ie " sho t the eoi constable a C ,stti h ean t bE l taehrroofoff parish uD S oe a ri y t h l , so. a:, ib himself through the head last week, with an air e 4 s t° „„ e dill died in about an hour. He had been greatly dePr e ' . consequence of pecuniary embarrassments. f o rth CHESTER AND HOLYHEAD RAlLWAY.—Tra.... c : jive , week ended 10th instant :—Passengers, C. & H. r e , 8 : 13 0 159 £2954 18s. 7d. ; Mold, £47 ss. 4d. ; steam .boaio! ls. sd. ; total, £3661 ss. 4d.—Parcels, C. & math Zd'; £Bl 3s. 6d.; Mold, £1 7s. 3d. ; steam-boats, £25, 1 ' o ils total, £lOB 3s. lid.—Goods, cattle, &c., C. 8 4 . V . 91 76. line, £486 18s. 4d. ; Mold, £B2 19s. sd. ; total, X.'`' 9d. -Mails, £s7s.—Total receipts, £4914 7s. . t . t h a bl' ANOTHERDEFAULTINGTAX-COLLEcTOR%TheI 4.00 tants of Tratunere appear to be particularly un fort „ J o in their selection of tax-collectors no loss than 1 : 01 s, having been declared defaulters within the last s.ix,Y d the Last week Thomas Dawkins, who had scarcely rie;f tb ,t e situation twelve months, was arrested at the Id - o rl " Crown, as defaulter to the amount of £166 7s. lodged in Chester Castle. oing ao HOLYHEAD HARBOUR. —The works fcr the ad "- and formation of the new breakwater at HoIYV west' steadily progressing. The wharf commenced on ° e a t the ern side of the harbour, for the accommodati on lir to terse cs Irish cattle traffic, has been abandoned, ocving,,. p a practicability of making a deep channel from tn - a of the inner harbour up to the proposed whe r "j t - c re quenco of the hard and rocky ground. The ea ' f, of the harbour is now spoken of. Ol e (AS 10 AN OLD OFFENDER.—James Fulton, a no,ort to e who was apprehended in Birkenhead about three wbef e o ego, on a charge of escaping from Knutsford gaol, OSA, he was undergoing a sentence of imprisonment °' • d o 0 lea ded months, for a robbery in Birkenhead, was tried l e s nesday at the Chester assizes. The prisoner Ptiofoti guilty to stealing an officer's uniform from I ‘ B ooo . gaol and to other charges of robbery, and was 3fien to ten years' transportation.—An Irishman named oe_ Holywood, committed to the Knutsford sessilidoK charge of robbing Stanley Youds, a farmer a t .„ l „stres of some money and other articles, in BeckwiL"Ofr Birkenhead, was convicted at the Chester assizes ° goo f nesday, and sentenced to seven years' transpor t t 11,10 PROPOSED MEETING IN CHESHIRE.—We r for P -0 to learn that a nucleus is forming in the county t t ica ,e for the holding of a meeting to take into considerned tei, depressed state of British industry generally, 8 00 a d , well . ho d especially the agricultural interest, for the WO tbe0 1 .,4, cussing the propriety of a combined resistance ti?_ o; sure of free trade as the cause of such depress l y eg al consequently, the necessity of obtaining, by alt o our Pcisa constitutional means, an eff ec ti ve modification o 0 0 00 sent fiscal and comm erc i a l p o li cy . I t i s furth er p opojr to consider whether a u n if orm express i on of t " - a b csi a r of the county should be made to support only to p ro dates at the next gene ra l e l ec ti on as w ill a dvoca eofi ess tion and security for British industry.—Cheste r eaur's6 --h THE STEPHENSON BANQ UET AT B ANG OR. per ~f of this festival in ho nour o f th e em i nen t e ng° 3 :' Tab Chester and Holyhead Railway and the Britann ia nt ,iseos Bridge, advertised to take place on the 27th itl a ns e t, fhe beyond all question, and to obtain good nes`. f iy- str tables, parties should apply for their tickets e ",. efe r tiolt fete will be the greatest affair of the kind tha._ 00'4 cursed in the Principality. It is expected that t.n,r a tteily gentry of Wales and the railway celebrities w il otoo - re A splendid pavilion has been erected for the a cc o cott a tt tion of five hundred persons, and all the arrang e reo o ;st on the most liberal scale. The Hon. Colon el „„ptily., M.P., the president, has subscribed £5O to the expenses fund, and William Bulkeley Hughes , one of the vice-presidents, £lO. 1 1084 ' 00, ,g GRAND ORDER OF MODERN DRUIDS.-- "as , f evening last, the Loyal Pride of Birkenhea d - Torsek, 300 of this order. celebrated their sixth a nn t bo P., n t Host Coglan's, Hamlet Tavern, Woodside, o t, .1 1 40 1 , st and brethren sitting down to a sumptuous r e P o ith u a asif o by the worthy host in his best style. After the ro sii,e e d of the cloth, P.A. Joseph Downham was u ccaP i be e f called to the chair. P.A. Alexander Scott ° 0 vice-chair. After the usual loyal toat e roa per t 4st disposed of, the chairman gave " The -% its b` e retr the Lodge," and, in a neat speech, reviewe d progPolef; and congratulated the brethren upon 0° r ect o th e position. P.A. Luke Duff, of Seacom° B ' a pea OA" About nine o'clock the rooms were throw° Da ocie' oil wives and sweethearts of the members. was ,0 commenced, and was continued to a late ho u i l i f it rst 7 0 EISTEDDFOD IN FLINT.—The town Of t he fi,,; 11/ Thursday last enlivened by an Eisteddfod k p isce p ", pat e i believe, ever held there. The meeting ° ci d Int t 00' 1 Old Castle Green, under a large tent crecte bly Job e pose, and was most numerously and respect titers , by a large sprinkling of Cambria's fair deut.d the form Prys Eyton, Esq., of Ll anerc hy mo re, oe l el v e ustia b L ia teri o ' and the Eisteddfod h av i ng b een o pened " ac trY.. o % the various prizes we re con t en d e d for in P and the useful arts. At intervals the 4 flar i V e tta i v e addressed in Engli s h b y Si r J o hn Han and effel/01i Hume, Richard Gardner, Esq., the maY° v . ,; rbil° B le by strains from the Holywell Band al.i r u_ on 01'1 4 0 4 Society, as well as by some exquisite to 2 I . ." 0",10 , harp, by Ellis Roberts, harpist to „one° Wales. The contest for the best li.en ° ba ing t ow Welsh harp was very spirited—the Prize o des 8 1, ba y by Mr. Jones, of Liverpool. Several . 0,1 iverpo o ,o , were exhibited, Mr. W. C, Miller, t MALICIOUS ARREST.—At the Cheste n a:' r tar ro str. - po 0 day, an action to recover conspens n att i a o r d been the judge. In the evening a cone e r r ....V, h°l3 ..te e ..,t . arrest was brought by Mr. Hernia, " oa sts, Crlpf by birth, but descended of Englissn ~.a d au prop's plaintiff v" den t s bad be attorneys, as Northwich. The fea dan se of saltworlcs at Winsford, and the oe , 8 0, wh osa tlldi resident in Liverpool, against Messrll-I°,7the Pi ri a'o r attorneys for him him up to March, s often . . ta ier b i. n set tleele af ter I t° owing them £305 15s. 9d., whic h Igso, t he F et r° dir duced to £122 13s. 7d. In May , . brother tendered £lOO to Mr. Greeuntliff shar tlf oof ie f , bill, but this was refused. The Pla l _ n d was r e f f cei posed of his business at Winsford , e a _ or der t he ;; li one 0. P ad Baron 0 ' "10 d i s c fendants Platt, obtained on the a b ro ad Is disc i de, fendants that the plaintiff was g olng r a fterwar u d a ats , l meat of his debts. The order was fthe at e" &Or ) 4 by Mr. Baron Parke. The bill 0 re r the d —e he n - taxed, only amounted to £BB. - n a g for OIL Liverpool, when he was arrested on u the plaintiff was about leaving th e mope found a verdict for the plaintiff , urged that they had reasonable g!!! otiatrY'rartr*. SATURDAY Thomas Egerton, who on the previous evening had been found guilty of manslaughter, arising out of the late boiler explosion, was placed at the bar to receive judgment. Baron PLATT s9.id he perfectly concurred in the verdict given by the jury. In all cases where the lives of her Majesty's subjects were sacrificed through the careless ness or negligence of persons haying charge of engines or machinery, severe sentences would be inflicted. The prisoner was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, but not with hard labour. Mr. Williamson, who had been tried along with Eger ton, but acquitted and liberated on bail, was then ordered to stand up, and the jury were charged with a great num ber of indictments, jointly charging Mr. Williamson and Egerton with .manslaughter, in having caused the deaths of various individuals, separately. No evidence was offered by the prosecution, and verdicts of not guilty were given. Mr. Williamson was discharged. MANSLAUGHTER John Jackson, Cornw•orth Robinson, and Richard Dixon were indicted for the manslaugter of Charles Hume, at Salford, on the sth July. The prisoners and the deceased were drinking together at a public-house ; a quarrel ensued and a fight took place, in the course of which the deceased received injuries which caused his death on the following morning. The prisoners were acquitted. Samuel Heaton, charged with an assault and robbery upon Mary Bulcock, at Ashton under-Lyne, in April last, was acquitted. BURGLARIES William Norton, Catherine Norton, and William Langford were indicted for a burglary in the dwelling_ house of John Baggolev, at Manchester, in May last. Langford was found guilty of housebreaking, and V/m. Norton of receiving with a guilty knowledge. Catherine Norton was acquitted. Langford was sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment, and Norton to six months', with hard labour. Francis Williams, who pleaded guilty to burglary at Warrineon, was sentenced to twelve months' imprison ment, with hard labour. Michael Carney, Joseph Mills, Charles Macardy, Richd. Broady, Margaret Belshaw, and Mary Ann Broady were indicted for a burglary in the dwelling-house of Robert Blenkinsop, at Manchester, in May last. The prosecutor isasilk-mercer, in Oldham- street, MancLester; and on the night stated in the indictment, his premises were broken into and several hundred pounds' worth of silk goods stolen. Some of the prisoners had been seen in the vicinity of the premises shortly before the robbery, and the possession of the property was traced to the others. Upwards of thirty witnesses were examined. The prison ers were all found guilty, and sentenced as follows :—Car ney, eighteen months' imprisonment; Mills and Broady, ten years transportation; Belshaw, six months' imprison ment; Macardy, eighteen months' imprisonment. YESTERDAY. ASSAULT AND ROBBERY AT MANCHESTER. Thomas Dowling, 20. was indicted for having, at Man chester, on the night of the 2nd June last, assaulted Wm. Bunting, and robbed him of one pound in silver. The prosecutor had been drinking in company with the pri soner and other parties in Nell's public-house, and left the premises with them. On getting into Fetter-lane, he was knocked down by a blow from behind, and whilst insensible from the eflects, was robbed of the amount stated. Emily Stanley deposed to being in the White Horse, in Fetter-lane, on the night in question, when she heard a cry of " Watch." On running into the street, she saw the prosecutor lying on the pavement, with the prisoner and another man stooping over him. She screamed, when the two men ran away. Soon after the policeman met two men running in Minshull-street. He secured the prisoner. Mr. Pou.ocx, who defended the prisoner, contended that sufficient identity had not been established, and the jury, after very little consideration, acquitted the prisoner. His LORDSHIP said the prisoner had had a very narrow escape. ROBBERY AT MANCHESTER, Hrtvy Scholes, 67; John Smith, 36; Richard Hodges., 35; Eliza Maddox, 36; and Ellen Riley, 39, were charged with having broken into the shop of Mr. Anderson, hoot and shoe maker, at Manchester, and stolen therefrom 70 pairs of boots, and 70 pairs of shoes. Mr. Wheeler prosecuted, and Mr. Polloak appeared for Hodges ; but the rest of the prisoners were undefended. It appeared that on the night of the 4th of June the shop was locked up as usual ; and on being opened the following morning, the property was missed. The premises had been entered by means of a false key. The prisoners Scholes and Smith had been seen loitering about the shop on the Friday previous to the robbery. Scholes came into the shop, and was shown several articles, but went away without purchasing anything. Mr. POLLOCK made a long and able address to the jury on behalf of Hodges, contending there was no evidence to prove his participation in the robbery. His LoansniP,in summing up, dwelt particularly on the fact of the i;wo prisoners, Scholes and Smith, having been loitering about the shop a day or two previous to the rob bery, and complimented Miss Anderson on her vigilance in watching their movements. He also expressed his approval of the conduct of Psrtington, in the manner in which he traced the evidence after receiving the first clue. This was furnished by Maddox bringing a pair of shoes to pledge with a Mr. Shaw, who sent one of his assistants to ascertain where she lived, and then gave information to the police. The only evidence against Riley was her having consented to take a pair of shoes to be pledged for Hodges. As regarded Hodges, although there was no positive proof of his participation in the robbery, there was no doubt of his having dealt in the stolen property. He also thought that Maddox was not sufficiently impli cated to warrant a verdict being found against her. The jury, without retiring, found J)lin Smith and Henry Scholes guilty of breaking into the shop and stealing the goods, and Richard Hodges guilty of receiving the same, knowing them to have been stolen. The two women, Ellen Riley and Eliza Maddox, were acquitted. Sentence deferred. John Smith and Richard Scholes, who were prisoners in the former case, were also charged, in company with a man named George lanes, 40, with having broken into the house of Mr. David Misell, carver and gilder, of Strange ways, Manchester, and stealing therefrom two iron pans, one looking-glass, and other articles. Innes 'vas found guilt y, and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, with hard labour. Smith and Scholes were found guilty of receiving the goods, knowing them to have been stolen. There was a very bad account against these two prisoners for previous crimes, and his lordship, in passing sentence, said they evidently belonged to a very dangerous gang of housebreakers, and for the protection of societ} they must be sent out of the country. They were sentenced to be transported beyond the seas for the term of ten years. BIGAMY John Conlin, 46, pleaded guilty to having feloniously married Alice Ward, his former wife being then alive. The prisoner, who appeared much older than the age given in the calendar, said he had committed the act in ignorance, as he supposed his wife was dead, not having heard from her for more than two years. his second wife, Alice Ward, was called, and in answer to his lord ship as to " what the prisoner represented himself to her," said 'ne " had apprehended hisself to her as a widow," causing a hearty laugh in court, in which his lordship cordially joined. The prisoner was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, with hard labour. ASSAULT AND ROBBERY AT LEIGH John Murray, 22 ; William Thompson, 27 ; Martin Bell, 27 ; and John Harrison, 27, were indicted for having, at Westleigh, feloniously assaulted James Hurst, and taken from him a silver watch and eight shillings. On the 24th of April last there was a fair at Leigh, and the prosecutor and several others were drinking at the Fox public-houte. The prisoners were also present at different times during the evening. The prosecutor left the house about twelve o'clock, and shortly after was knocked down and robbed of his watch and some money. The prisoners slept at Leigh that night, and left together about nine o'clock next day. They went to War rington that day, and took lodgings from a person named Ackers. They afterwards tried to induce him to " fence a thimble"—that is, dispose of a watch—for them, but, after giving information to the police, returned it to them. The prisoners were afterwards taken into custody, and on Thompson a watch was found, which was produced in court, and turned out to be the property of the prose cutor, James Hurst. It appeared that Bell and Murray were in bed at the time of the occurrence, and the jury therefore acquitted them. Harrison and Thompson were found guilty, and sentenced, the former to fifteen, and the latter to ten years' transportation. CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH. Elizabeth Woodall, 22, was charged with haying con ceded the birth of a child, at Manchester. The prisoner took lodgings of Robert Russell, in April last, and from her appearance suspicion was aroused in the mind of Mrs. Russell that she was in the family-way, On the 30th of April, the prisoner was very restless, continually running in and out of the yard, and subsequently the body of a child was found in the privy. Mr. Goland, surgeon, of Manchester, said the child had been still-born, and the jury acquitted the prisoner. Ellen Evans, 26, was charged with a like offence. The girl had complained of being ill, which excited the sus picion of her mistress, Mrs. Armstrong, who searched and found the body of a child partly covered with rags, in a lumber room, near the prisoner's bed-chamber. A surgeon gave it as his opinion that the child was still born, and the prisoner was 'acquitted. She stated, in her ex amination, that the father of the child was her mistress's TIIL, Court rose at seven o'clock, Mr. Baron PLATT objecting to work " late hours." NISI PRTUS COURT.-THURSDAY. • (Before Mr. Justice WI LLIA MS.) LEAKE v. Boorn.—This was an action of assault, to which the defendant pleaded not guilty. Mr. Sergeant Wilkins appeared for the plaintiff', and the Attorney-Ge neral conducted the defence. Verdict for the plaintiff— damages, one farthing. THI ASSIZE. COURTS Previously to Opening the above case. Mr. Sergeant WILKINS said that sixteen years ago the corporation made a promise that if the assizes were brought here they would provide proper courts for the administration of justice. They had, however, broken faith, and had illus trated the old adage that a corporation would do that which would cause individuals to hang their heads with shame. Human life more than once had been sacrificed in that place through the indolence and supineness of the corporation ; and if he thought they would be guided by anything he could say in court, or that they would be urged to keep their promise, he would say a great deal more. He (the learned sergeant) suffered most acutely every time he came there from the unhealthy atmosphere of the courts, and he could not help expressing his feel ings as he had done on the present occasion. ROBINSON Ux. V. MATHER.—This was an action to recover damages for an assault alleged to have been com mitted by defendant on plaintiff's wife. Both parties reside at Manchester, and are engaged in carrying on the business of coach-builders. After the case had been par tially gone into, it was agreed to withdraw a juror. KERR V. JOHNSON.—An action on a promissory note for £2O, endorsed by the defendant. Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with interest. BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. WALKER V. WOLSTENHOLME.—This was an action brought by the plaintiff, Emma Walker, against the defendant, John Wolstenholme, for an alleged breach of promise of marriage. The declaration stated that the defendant made a promise to marry the plaintiff before Christmas, 1850, and that he failed to perform such pro mise. The defendant pleaded that he did not promise in manner and form. The case excited much interest, and the court was crowded during the trial. Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr. Pollock appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Watson and Mr. Monk for defendant. The plaintiff was the fourth daughter of Saml. Walker, of Bury, who held a situation as bookkeeper at the Liver pool and Bury Railway. He had been in business in Manchester, but being unsuccessful be retired from trade. The defendant was a young man carrying on business as an ironmonger in Bury, and he had also a standing in the Market-place, where he disposed of his goods. Both plaintiff and d e f en d an t were mem b ers o f a dissenting congregation ; both were Sunday-school teachers, and the acquaintance began at a tea-party given to the teachers of the Sunday-school. For some time he continued his attention to the plaintiff, and was accepted in her parents' house as her suitor. About this time she received an anonymous letter, cortaining certain imputations on the defendant's character, and the first time she saw him after, she read the letter to him, intimating that if he did not clear himself, she would break off the intimacy. He did not give a satisfactory explanation, and the intimacy was, therefore, broken off accordingly. The plaintiff afterwards went to reside at Euxton, as nursery governess in a gentleman's family, where she remained about two years. At the urgent request of the defendant she re turned, when the intimacy was again commenced, and continued up to a cert in period. Ann Walker said—l am the wife of Samuel 'Walker, bookkeeper at the Bury Railway, and mother of the plaintiff, who is 23 years of age. The defendant is about. 26. He is an ironmonger at Bury, and carries on busi ness, also, in Rochdale. He began to visit at our house in 1846, and continued his visits for about six months, paying attention to my daughter Emma. S'te afterwards went to live as governess with Mr. Priestly, where she re mained about two years. During her absence the defend ant spoke to me about her, and when she returned home he renewed his visits, and continued them almost every night, after business hours. In June, 1850, my daughter had a small pnstule on her forehead, and the defendant when he called wished her to go out with him. They went out about half-past eight, and did not return for an hour, although desired to stay only a quarter of an hour. After that evening the defendant continued his visits, and paid attention to my daughter as usual. On Sunday, August 11, my daughter went out, but returned home and in clnsequence of what she said, I informed my husband. Next morning, I and my husband, and my daughter Fanny went to see defendant. He was in the shop, and I said I wanted to speak with him ; I walked into the sitting-room ' and the defendant then came in ; I and my husband and daughter were there; I asked him what his intentions were as regarded my daughter. said, " you know what I mean, Emma is in the family way by you." He said, "It was a common occurrence of the folly of youth." " Yes," said I, " amongst the low bred, but not amongst respectable people." I said, "you must fix the wedding day." " Well," lie said, " I cannot possibly be married at present, but I will at Christ mas." I asked him to mention an earlier period, as her disgrace would be getting known, and he said he could not, but that I might depend upon him at Christmas, or sooner if he could. My husband offered him a written contract to sign, but he said we might depend upon his word. After that my daughter Fanny left the room. I cried, and he requested me to dry my tears, saying they would be married at Christmas. He called the same evening and saw Emma, but was not very comfortable. He continued to visit until the Bth of December, and paid the same attention as formerly. Early in December I called and saw him in his shop, and asked him to fix the wedding day, as I thought it high time. He said some thing had transpired and he could not be married. I said I could not bear such language. After treating Emma as he had done it was shameful, and I would see what the law could do. He said I might go to law. I also called on him about a week before Christmas, and asked him to fulfil his promise with Emma, and he laughed and sneered, and said lie had made no promise. My daughter was delivered in February of a daughter, and I consulted an attorney. Cross-examined by Mr. WATSON.—My daughter was a governess to Euxton. She might be nursery-maid. She assists her sister now at dress making. The sister is older than Emma. The elder one, Sarah, is in a family. The youngest, Fanny, is being brought up as a pupil teacher. Jane Ellen Walker.—Was eldest sister to the plaintiff. Remembered at Christmas, 1846, the defendant intro ducing himself at a Sunday-school tea party. when we were returning home. We had some forks which had been used at the party, and he introduced himself by ask ing to carry them. On the following Sunday he saw her again, and continued his visits. I received an anonymous letter, in consequence of which the intimacy was broken off by my sister. She then went to live at Euxton, as a nursery governess; while she was away the defendant sent his love to her, and requested that he might see her when she came home. I said I was not sure she would like to see him. On her return I introduced her again, and the intimacy was renewed. He said his house was not exactly to his mind, but when he and my sister were married she could make it so. lie called my mother by that name after the 12th of August. In June, 1850, my sister had a small tumour on her forehead; and defend ant, when he came, requested her to take a walk. She declined on account of the tumour, when he said he could get her a plaster which would cure it very soon. A few days afterwards I noticed my sister weeping, and apparently uneasy. The defendant had a sister living with him, and she left about June. The defendant wished my sister to go to his house to make him some pies and bake some bread, but she refused to go without one of her sisters. The defendant wished my sister to get him a housekeeper, and she said she had got him one, a woman about forty. He said she was too old for him. I went once with my sister Emma to make him some pies and bread. Ho once said that when he married, purity and innocence should he his choice, and that he could find that in my sister Emma. One day in August me and my sister met the defendant with a Miss Openshaw, and my sister be came ill and leaned on my arm ; when she got home she went into hysterics. She has never been well since. A fortnight after this we met the defendant in Market street, coming out of Mr. Openshaw's shop; he followed us, arid my sister asked him how he could think of going with Miss Openshaw when he was engaged to her. He said he was going past, and one of her fascinating smiles had drawn him in ; lie said, " Don't be j ea l ous , Emma ; she is nothing to compare to you!" He afterwards came to our house, and would not come in at first. He said, " How can I forshame after what you have told Your father and mother." While in the parlour, he said, i ‘ As sure as I stand on this ground, Emma, you shall be my wife at Christmas, or before if I can make it convenient." He said he would bring no disgrace upon the family. He called me sister Jane twice that evening. He continued to visit up to the Bth of December, and more than once repeated that promise. He once spoke to me of his nice shop, and said he had £lOOO of stock, and it was nearly all paid for. Cross-examined by Mr. Watson.—l am a dressmaker ; when my sister was at Euston she went during the time to Bury, but the defendant never saw her there. The defendant was at his father's shop, but he had lately gone into business on his own account. Had walked out with the defendant and my sister sometimes. I thought at one time he was paying some attention to me, on account of my sister Emma. He told me once that he understood Emma was engaged, and he would be glad if I would except him. I did not make any reply. When my sister was away I sometimes went with the defendant, and I frequently went since, with my sister, the defendant, and Craig. Was at a party at defendant's house on the 16th November. All my sisters and several others were there. Frances Eliza Walker, another sister to the plaintiff, corroborated the evidence previously given. Mr. Watson addressed the jury for the defendant. He said that if his client were so horrible a character as Mr. Sergeant Wilkins bad endeavoured to make him ap pear, the plaintiff had not lost much. If he were a bad man, what could she lose by not hay.inthim for a husband ?