The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-04-18 00:00:00

eot r it to iL P (r 199127: iNTRLI4IO7!NOi CROWN COURT-FRID i'dget Di CASES OF FELONY ii'7 ; ,ed tO $ vev ag ev e o b °l er ro . rt b ob l s 'cho eec o l i ; ' lee o • Ji) joil g tile 'stir If i s • o cy 0 13 co; er c o' o or 0 4 f e, ii 000" tiff fel3 fli er 0 5e oe' t ift [ l ie e Ar 1 - 1 0 Ole P r i or" 'Cl' 7 Ye SOUTH LANCASHIRE SPRING ASSIZES r. She stood cbarAcd It having a-ssault piaceu at the vereig ns ed and r o bb e d C atharine Shaw, of ten so , on the 30th of August last, at the bottom of Crosbie-street, in this town.months' Shewas sentenced to four imprisonm en t. Edward Peet, 25, and Edward lluf/lies, 24, were charged with having, at Liverpool, on the 14th of August last, as saulted and stolen a watch from William Robson. Hughes was discharged, and Peet was sentenced was sentenced to ten years: transportation. William Caldwell, 41, wa s c h arge d with having, at ‘, l ""seY, entered upon certain eor-in..,i - Tile Ina -•-..,,Jer last, i n t h e occupation,u of uu 'William Howard, armed with a gun, for the purpose of destroying game. lle wits found guilty, and sentenced to nine months' imprison ment with hard labour. 'W C HARTER. CASES. on the illiam Williams, 35, was i ndicted for having, at Oldham, alth o Augu s t last, a t ten d ed an illegal meeting in the pen air, and there used seditious, wicked, and inflammatory language, tending to bring her Alajesty's government into cantempt, and to lead to sudden changes and sedition. Ther e were three counts in the indictment. The first charged him, a long with others, in exciting to riot—the second charge b t! him, with others, in attempting to force her Majesty's su d jects from their lawful occupatons—and the third charged h im with attempting to force the people to give up work till the charter became the law of the land. The last part of the indictment Was, however, abandoned. The prisoner defended himself, and, after the witnesses for the prosecution had jury i n h is own behalf. tendered th e i r ev i dence, addressed the His Lordship summed up. He explained the three counts in the indictment, but stated that the crown had abandoned the third. It would, therefore, he for the jury to say whe ther the first and second were borne out by the evidence. If they were satisfied that the prisoners had excited others to riot, by inducing a them to go and intimidate peaceful pen- Pie, so as to force them to quit their employment ; and, in order to accomplish that, he and others, in a large body, overawed them and put the threat into execution, then they must find him guilty ; hut if th were not satisfied that such m ere his intentions, they would acquit him. 'I het jury, after a few minutes' consultation, returned a ' , l 7 ls rd l i ord f guilty upon the first count but recommended to already sblieiepntfio take into' consideration' that the prisoner had month s in prison. ti o llls t: d ILordshipvesaid he would attend to the recommends _ea then ordered the prisoner down. t-i orge Sant/ s iti an unlawful rneetin',, • the month of Aug.saa who stood charged with having attended the capacity of chairman, at Ashton, in 1 hv hoped his lordship,A;ust last, pleaded guilty. Mr. 1‘ urp _ u as the chargeagainst the prisoner was slight, would discharge hiin on his entering into a reco-ni zance for his future good conducl.Nlr. Wortley, on the part of the crown. agreed in the recommendation of the prisonerlearned Sergeant (Murphy.) His Lordship then told the he would be disehar ,, ed, on ivin a recognizance for -rwil , .--4, to keep the peace for"two year g s. g The Cuurt rose at a quarter past eight o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT.---FRIDAY. Mr. Justice Coltman took his seat on the bench at two o'clock, when the Commercial Bank of England case was re "med. The first witness called was .Alexander Graham, the manager of the Birmingham branch, w "oae direct e xamination had not been closed at the rising of the colust evening. He gave additional evidence as to the manner in which business had been transacted at his branch, am'. said that a sum of £lO,OOO had been set aside b o a the purchase of shares, in the be of March, 1840, t? a board minute. The resignation of Mr. Turner, as a nirector, was ordered at the same time to be inserted in the minutes. W AI hen gated, the account of Mr. -leanly was i nveat i - T i ed, there a ppeared to b e a sum of £10,816 due to the bank. w , _tness furnish e d a report to tile directors. Cross-examined by th e SOLICITOR -GE NERAL. —Was ori !nallY all accountant at the 13i/114101am branch. Had pre `'lonsly been an accountant in Scotland. His knowledge of hankina business in his having wound Up b . Mkrupts' estates. Turners, business and Ashton examiner! particular account , s at th e • Birmingham branch towards the latter end of 1835. lour or five of tile directors went regularly through the accounts of the branch in 1839. The inspector of the branches went over the accounts about once a year. upupAlexander the present manager of the winding of the Davidson,Connmercial Bank, said he first became connected it in 1 834. He was accountant in the Rochdale, Lud low, Ashhourne, and Manchester branches. Weekly, quar terly, and half -yearly statements were sent from the branches toto the head bank. \Vas chiefly accountant at Manchester up 1 the stoppage of the bank, and in that capacity his duty ; Ives to make out the statements for the directors and gene- I t o o7board. Ile only conducted one half -yearly balance prior the branches stopped the day before. The books and pa pers remained at their respective branches until they were cl osed, and then they were transmitted to Manchester. Since the n they ve been under witness's management. About time shave stoppage witness was desired to make out an ti.ecount of the state of the bank. The amount of the liabili j.tlc.:l3,3ooof the bank at assistede of the stoppage was about ,000. Witness a committee of inspectors, aP pointed at a general meeting of the shareholders, in forming ;1.11 estimate of bad and doubtful debts owing to the bank. .I. here were old balances on the books. Does not know the tlebts which have since been paid. The creditors of the bank nave generally been paid. The shareholders have never been pptalirdp.oseAolofiley has been borrowed of the shareholders for the paying off the creditors. That was borrowed at ttlie time of the stoppage. The bank still owes £50,000 to .he ahareholders on account of the money borrowed. The bank owes to the creditors generally, including the £50,000, Shout .C 72.000. The liabilities of the bank on the 31st of De cember, 1 839, were X 658,759 ss, 9d. Bills current at that time are not included in tile sum now mentioned. The en- tire of the liabilitie s in Dec ember, 1839, were less by 1:100,000 than they were in June 1810. The amount of overdue bills to the bank on the last day of 1840 was upwards hills to the bank on the last day of 1810 was upwards of 4:80,000. No bad debt account had been opened at that time The amount of overdue bills on the 31st December, w na1.:81,914 • and on the 31st December, No general had debt account was kept at the bank prior to the stoppage, but some debts were marked off as bad. Others 1838,1;38,553 12s 6d. were retained to the close, and never marked off as bad. The assets of the bank, if they could be got in after paying the liabilitiet, would leave a surplus of betwean , £Booo and f.,9000 Pay back the shareholdars their capital. This was estimated .)! 4 eonlltitee. 'Witness believed the bank to be a very flourishing concern in 1836. He was then at Rochdale, and not at head quarters. In December, 1811, witness sent a Printed circular to the plaintiff. Cross-examined by xNE.--The altnount of overdue bills the on the SoLICITOR- 31st DecGemberß,AL 183 7, was -4()1115 . The book containing the liabilities and assets was :uncrrtistbieesttO re the directors at the time they made their reports. That book contained the amount of the overdue bills. Se were the shape of life policies and guarantees, a:-Co , i 'e,lrl for the overdue bills. Securities were ' l e'd for the current accounts. Witness pre lairdirect Part of the report which was first laid before the r ee , t° 's arid then before the general meeting of shareholders. r ' w ell, the manager, prepared another report. The only e 50.... fr, Fitness sent before the directors was altered, but most 1 c'ths. the language of it was retained. The current accounts, ' laid b e y of profit and loss, and other documents were reportsin before the directors when they met to prepare the annual Mr. Ashton arid Mr. Turner both advanced money ,f salh„ ank, to the amount of £5OOO each, since the stoppage. . t2 e,„Y so discounted bills and gave cash to the amount . of ~,h .` i i r o at one time. The bills they discounted were bills 11/h e 1 w ould not be discounted in the discount market. ratniti,the bank first stopped, witness considered, after . exat pay a the accounts, that the assets would be sufficient o that ~,, the liabilities and leave a surplus. It was then thought they the assets would be much more than it now appeared many would They were calculated at £212,000, but a great of _ e 3 ' . had debts were afterwards discovered. The amount ha b t l tiu3al liabilities in October, 1840, were £231,106. They t° ° , ooo. eett reduced from the preceding June by about offitaelxamined by Mr. KNOWLES.--Witness did not strike r 5 .., 0 ',4lgie bad debt when he furnished the directors with his 4 l'i!ilthough the over -due bills, in December, we ot 1839, ha s i' n ,i• , He treated those over-due bills as a,sets , ~ ti ja, that ! all any Power to do otherwise. Witness' s opinion T he , it is very fallacious to treat over-due bills as assets. tae .e, ) , ° ,,,nut of capital paid up by the shareholders altogether is i nd ``)°,°oo. Tile £50,000 borrowed from the shareholders Claudius of the original capital. th at ~ll'llus Vaytin, cashier at the Liverpool branch, stated headfeoUnts were constantly sent from that branch to the f the direct at Manchester. A letter, containing the report o tr_ulrectors.to the general meeting of tile shareholders, was latatlltiMtted in F ebruary, 1836, from the head bank to the c ashi er of the Liverpool branch. It was signed by the twvr.of the head bank. for the was here recalled, and said that he had searched he h a : 1 ; report forwarded to the Liverpool branch, and that_ bank."eett unable to find it. 11c searched for it at the head T wave been shareholders he SCLICITOR-G ENERALsubmt•tted that the search should a s i n Made at Liverpool,e and not at the head bank. It portantthtehraet. report should be produced, as the " directed the manager at Liverpool to lay it before the lii s L o vast; unstita took a note of the objection. tiff- . ,t 1 then proved the purchase of the shares by the,plain tt,,, his cross- examination, by the SOLICITOR -GENE.. of ben said the plaintiff was a surgeon and buyer and seller NvaesOttoll, and that he did business wits the bank in bills. kaaePt Present ill December, 1835, when the plaintiff en not ~_e m take between 200 and 300 shares in the bank. Does I,eit„e.rollect behig present when any such conversation passed; tiffueloes he recollect that a factory was sold by . the plain t of e Plaintiff was remonstrated with respecting the na ad no the was paying in. The manager at Liverpool Powe r. P° wer to allot shares. The directors only lied I th h at t th e aatklr lternen.strances were made with the plaintiff so li nar • e of his bills both before and after he purchased the TOli t ° f con,ie K to t `111001:h e : b Th ank e plaintiff was f requently in the habit ;l 0 . le r i e , irge Revis examined by Mr. KNOWLES : Was junior aset 4 ' the Liverpool branch in 1836,. and entered the pair ofi, °f the shares in the book.—Cross-examined by the So tlie,f4t-G. 1:11.4at, Never recollects being present when 1 , 4 Intifi proposed to take shares in the bank. tl na llnd 'e p l aint; T aylor examined by Mr. MARTIN.—Is cousin to 1 183. f.,.11, d was a merchant in Liverpool in 1834 and tim e dept 5 4` tt er an account with the Commercial Bank at that ; etbi a li gr t ee t :„ 11(1 Mr r " "naequence of some conversation between him •ar the ' '-'angton tl Liverpool manager, the latter applied s kit e Plainti ff t ' le 0 buy shares in the bank. The plaintiff did t itai n a . 0 uy. Li the following December Mr, Langton P Phed to the plaintiff to buy, and said that in all pro m w,Ye‘there would be an excellent dividend after Christnuta sittiti.rue'full_ll,s would participate if he bought. The plaintiff apepPlicati_e_o. In January, 1836, Mr. Langton renewed his paid n ' and said that the bank had made 10 per le the ,•,,; 1 P eaPital. The plaintiff still refused until he soldsh gie nt , - 'l , Oll of Btu - . •- li M r .• e directors, In the latter part oftitieepslaamine s,iid ?fie ca ivi,angton renewed his application, when !'ete of fe n r !, ?laid purchase shares at the price at which hey latter s 4 i,, c c,' In the preceding month by Mr. Langton.ul e la ter mr%tle could not do that. In ten days or a fortnight Willi:l'4,lo3n again applied, and ultimately the plaintiff Eli m ug to take 200 shares at ' .Z6 each. Mr. Langton led wtahether ' l 4 l.... ° „ ff er, and desired him to make . up . his mind 1,.. Par cha-,""unl buy or not. Tice plaintiff again decl!".e r. ' I 'M '`- 14 4'1 he h d f • . th, it ,said that the report would be out in a then Illui n the, a seen the directors' repor f t e . w d tV a l ys 44r41,11 it, mould write to Manchester for one, andand he e c i t l44 r ead tini aorne days after, Mr. Langton 0 we to th e „, .e t:ePort, and asked him to co . er uently ht t o u mintitf. Witness and the plaintiff su s i was 4 Writt", T batik, when L ort. It as tvitne,B-'"uleliment • 'ington handed the_re e p plaint __. ist - a , nel o St G _ read i t, and on the counter. Th L, ! then the former agree_ ... . he mm to u b i nicate tile d to purchase 20 t o la r t f tlir'ea c c t h o; s A.!!.._, dare ton promised to submn.. , f , s , our days after to get the scrip down accepte . for £1,400 rf 20 sh'a;ea.4ter, Mr. Langton handed a cheque ned. mr. d l o d ffe th r re to e ettTnifton ~i i d s at X 7 each, which the plaintiff a th e m ai .the price in the market was .47 I) the J anise 4; 7. n,itT Would be allowed the differencebetween do ros s ,„ e . , Witness ir % hot k ` ° W ' by the SourciTort-GENERA-- lica esrlgshare, and 12., ° to t he die Of the plaintiff having made a forma WA l n a e P s P s left ~,..serpof last ectora for shares in Feb., 1836. - ' of a ztyititiller a t Gia M a aY, and now carries on the business l ft sa Lust irt g°w- Was twice a bankrupt holder in Cow l equence of haviug been a share before he e Central ahly abio to rty Iss, Wan mie bankruptcy. 'lht, plaintiff never told him that he Ithd .q. shares in Dereniber ' (Identified letters written by the plaiuir: to the bank in 1835.) Witness always went with Mr. Langton to the plaintiff at the time the IteL:Qtiatiotr bout the purchase of the shares was going forward. The ue was si4;ned for the X 7, ahtt nut for the .1:0, n the clip was Itecuse Mr. I,:ingion siiid it would have a bad effect on the Manchester market, if it were signed for :anything than £7. Mr. Langton died in eighteen months alter. The plaintiff ne,or told witness that the bills he was sending into the bank had been remonstrated against, and that he thought he would get money more easily from the concern if lie became a shareholder. Three certificates for the 600 shares, which had been pur. chased by the plaintiff, were then put in and read. They were signed by Messrs. Slater and Turner, as directors. The So Lie iron- G ENERAL asked upon which of the counts his learned friends were proceeding? Mr. KNOWLES said he proceeded on all the counts, be. cause he submitted that there had been a general conspiracy to delude the public. He thought, under such circumstances that he should not be called upon to select. The SoLicuroa-GtNEILAL asked, whether it was cowpe. tent for his learned friend to go upon all the counts, seeing that no conspiracy had been charged? Mr. KNOWLES said the defendants were present at all the meetings, and that, therefore, all the counts could be re tained. His Lortnsnir said he should tell the Jury that they could only find upon those counts which affected all the parties, as the counsel for the plaintiff relied upon all. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved for a nonsuit, upon the ground that the writing containing the alleged misrepresenta tion had not been produced, and referred, in support of his argument, to the case of Lord Edwd. Thynne. He also referred to the case of Vokes v Sleinkeller in the Common Pleas. His LORDSHIP said that leave to enter a nonsuit might be reserved. The case for the plaintiff having closed, The SoLiciroß-GENER.AL addressed the jury for the de fendants. He was apprehensive, after all the evidence which had been given, that he should be unable to bring the precise question before them. It was one of very consider able importance. In a pecuniary point of view it was of the utmost importance to the defendants. If the plaintiff was entitled to the amount of his shares, when would there be an end to the actions which would be commenced against Messrs. Turner and Ashton, who stood among the first of the merchants at Manchester, but who could never stand against the multiplicity of actions that would be brought against them if the present succeeded. They had been char ged with swindling, falsehood and, mendacity ; but it should be proved that they had been guilty of this fraud and falsehood for the purpose of injuring others for the benefit of themselves, in order to sustain the action. He complai ned of the manner in which the case had been conducted, because evidence applying only to some part of the transac tion had been given. He complained that Mr. Edge had not been examined, and that the letters written by the plaintiti to the bank, and produced by the witness, Davidson, had not been read. The defendants had, unfortunately, become connected in '36 with the Commercial Bank ; and, having men tioned the name of the Commercial Bank, the failure of which had caused misfortune to many, he trusted the jury would dis miss all prejudice on the subject from their minds. The defen dants had been directors ; but they were charged, on the present occasion, with not having inspected the books, or being ne gligent in the discharge of their duties. They were charged however, with having made false and fraudulent representa tions, knowing them to be false, and with intent to injure the plaintiff ; and the question was, whether the plaintiff had made out his case. The case differed from every former case, and also from all joint-stock bubbles. What was the profit and motive charged against the defendants here ? Mr. Knowles, in his opening, had said that Mr. Ashton had sold shares and pocketed £2OOO by the transaction ; but there was not a shadow of truth in that statement ; it had not been es tablished In evidence, and was wholly and entirely without foundation. The whole charge made resolved itself into re presentations made by the General Board of Directors. The first was said to be made in February, 1836, and the others at annual and half-yearly meetings. There was no represen tation made by the defendants severally, but all the represen tions were made by the General Board ; and, if this action were sustainable against the defendants, every member of the board was equally responsible. He submitted, however, that it was utterly impossible to sustain the charge of fraud and falsehood upon the evidence which had been tendered. There were seventeen local branches, and the head bank at Manchester. There was a local director, a manager, and an accountant, at each branch, and there was an inspector of branches besides. The practice was, not for the directors to overlook the books, but for the paid officers so to do. By the 56th clause of the deed, the General Board of Directors were to make known to the shareholders only so much as they deemed right to snake public. There was no conceal ment made use of when the bad debts were not mentioned, for there was a reserved fund for the purpose of covering the bad debts. Every shareholder was aware of the existence of the reserved fund ; and, when a question was asked at one of the meetings as to whether the reserved fund was sufficient to cover the bad debts, the manager answered in the affirma tive. And what would have become of the plaintiff and the other shareholders if no dividend was recommended ? Would not the shares have been utterly unsaleable under such cir cumstances? He would show that the defendants, Messrs. Ashton and Turner, had struggled against the local directors with respect to the amount of the dividends, and that the local directors possessed the power, if they pleased, of sub mitting a motion at the board to have the accounts audited. He would also show that the local directors attended the board constantly—that they were aware of the business at their respective branches and of the existence of the had debts—that they were always anxious for a declaration of a high dividend, and yet that they never moved for an audit of the accounts. lie would further show that when the ac counts were audited in 184(1 by hostile auditors, the defend ants, Ashton anti Turner, thought the bank in a prosperous state, and that it was fully able to pay a dividend of five per cent ; for they had been told by the auditors that it was able to pay a dividend of £:5 per cent, and that they expected it would shortly be able to pay a higher dividend. He con tended that Messrs. Turner and Ashton had no more motive or interest in the bank than would apply equally as well to every other shareholder. Having read several clauses of the deed, the Solicitor-General proceeded to call attention to the representations which had been made to the board, in Feb., 1837, and also to the composition of the board itself. He said he believed the members of the board were incapable of committing fraud, falsehood, swindling, and cheating, although every one of them was open to such a charge on the present occasion. The only question in the case seemed to be, whether fraud was committed, so far as the shareholders were concerned, in the bad debts not having been mentioned ; and her e he begged it to be recollected that Messrs. Turner and Ashton had never given an order as to the mode in which the accounts were to be furnished, but that order was given by Mr. Macardy and the clerks and managers from Scotland, which that gentleman had appointed ; and he sub mitted that to charge the misconduct of Macardy upon two of the defendants would be exceedingly unjust. He then re ferred to the evidence of the several witnesses at great length, commenting upon it as he proceeded, an d all through con tending that the directors had taken the accounts upon the representations of the clerks without examination ; and that, although they might be guilty of negligence in having takers them without examination, they were not guilty of fraud and falsehood. He complained of the defend an t s nut having been afforded an opportunity of preparing their defence. He thought it a hardship that they should have been obliged to come into court totally unprepared, they not having been allowed access to the accounts and books of the bank. He observed that by a clause in the deed the directors were given a reserved fund of a certain number of reserved shares to be disposed of in case of any contingency ; that Mr. Edge and Mr. Panton were appointed as auditors in '4O ; and that those two gentlemen investigated the whole of the books, and then recommended a dividend of five per cent. to be made, distinctly stating that the assets of the bank were in a posi tion to warrant the making of such a dividend, and that with proper care the bank would be one of the first concerns of the day. The Solicitor-General read the report of Messrs. Edge and Panton to this effect, and in which they further stated that the profits were considerable, and that the bank would pay £5 per cent. for the next four years, and upwards of £5 per cent. up to that time. He asked whether the de fendants were to discredit the testimony of experienced seen like the auditors in question, who had examined the accounts most fully, and who had placed the result of their examina tion upon paper and presented it to the board ? He submit ted that no evidence had been given to show that the plain tiff had become a shareholder in consequence of the alleged false and fraudulent report of February, '39, and that in the absence of proof upon this head there was no ground of ac tion. He guarded himself about being supposed to give any opinion in favour ofjuint-stock banks ; but he said the bank in this instance had been formed upon Lord Althorp's pro position of real and not nominal capital, and that there was no one who could imagine for a moment, front the wording and reading of the first report, that the dividend was to be paid out of the profits, the more particularly as the hank had only been one year in existence at the time. The Soli citor-General concluded his address, the delivery of which occupied two hours and a half, at a quarter after ten o'clock, by confidently anticipating a verdict for his clients. Mr. BAINES then briefly addressed the jury on behalf of his clients, Messrs. Palin and Bower, both of whom, he said, had been ruined by their unfortunate connexion with the bank. His LORDSHIP proceeded to charge the jury at twenty minutes to eleven o'clock, by observing upon the importance of the case, and the necessity of their considering it apart from prejudice, and solely upon the evidence. He then re capitulated the evidence, commenting upon it as he pro ceeded ; after which the jury retired, and at a quarter to one o'clock returned a verdict for the defendants, adding, " at the same time, we beg leave to express our opinion that there has been gross and, unpardonable negligence on the part of the defendants." CROWN COURT.-SATURDAY. NIGHT POACHING. Richard Johnson, alias Willis, 34, and John Culshaw, 27, were charged with having, on the 29th of September, i❑ the neighbourhood of Ormskirk, been out armed in pursuit of game, in a field the property of Lord Skelmersdale. Mr. Paget conducted the prosecution, and Mr. Wilkins the de fence. The case was gone through nearly, but one of the principal witnesses was himself one of the party of poachers that night, and admitted that he expected £2O for his evi dence, if the prisoners were convicted. One witness said that there were three poachers, another that there were four, and another that there were five. Mr. Wilkins ably ad dressed the jury on behalf of the prisoners, and the jury acquitted them both. It was stated that there was another indictment against Culshaw. Johnson was dicharged. OBTAINING MONEY UNDER FALSE PRETENCES. Thomas Butler, aged 41, a well-dressed, respectable-look ing man, was charged with having, at Liverpool, put off a forged indorsement upon an order for the payment of money. with intent to defraud M`Calmont and Co.—Mr. Paget ap peared for the prosecution and Mr. Wilkin for the defence. —The former, in stating the case, explained the nature of seamen's monthly advance notes, given them before they went to sea, and payable a few days after the ship which they had engaged to go with had sailed, with the party, in whose favour it was given, on board.—James Wilcock, a boy, ap plied at the shipping -office of Mr. Trevaskis, in order that he might be shipped as an ordinary seaman. This was on the Bth of April last year. He there saw the prisoner, who carried on business as shipping agent at the same place, and addressed hint on the subject. He promised to procure the boy a berth, and did so, on board the barque Glenco, bound to Halifax, at the rate of £2 a month. The boy joined the vessel in the river on the 14th of April, and she sailed on the same day. He saw the prisoner on board, with a monthly note in his (prosecutor's) behalf, and told him to give it to his father. There was no indorsement on it then, nor did the boy authorize the prisoner to indorse it in his name, or write the name upon it himself, and he could write. He went to sea, and on his return, on the 3rd of February last, he first saw the note again, and it was then indorsed in his name, with " hi s mark." The boy's father fitted him out with clothes, not the prisoner ; and it was stated that the prisoner, in place of giving the note, as directed, to the father, appro priated it to himself, and obtained the money. After the sailing of the s hi p, t h e f at h er s aw the prisoner, and asked him if he wou ld deliver up the note , an d his reply was, that that he kne w not hi ng at all about it. H e afterwards summoned the prison er to the Court of R eques ts for the h note, but th e summons was di sm i ss ed. T afterwards brought before Mr. Rushton , and was committed. The amount prisoner nu wa s afterwards of the as ue The boy •t• That he on cross-examination, a dmitted that he had stolen hismother's gown , and pawned occasion ally took a sup o f drink, and was i n l i quo r w hen he gave the shipping -note to th e p rosecu tor. though cross-examination, l e said he knew said the boy was a good lad, an d b e never K what he w as a b out. The father, on his. a cw any thing it! PIA 4Sil tll4 think :thy thing of tbz ditpriLtlot gown ; b4Virt4 near ot4t4 get his ,on to tied for fear_ll( that 14 waott,i lould he transporttd The cashier or agent of the ship proved that he paid the prisoner two sovereigns, the amount of the shipping note„ and look his receipt for it, which was produced. Wit IiCSS did not consider the endorsement necessary to dayment, as he would have paid it without if the man had gone in the ship. The prisoner, on being apprehended, said he had got the money, that he had paid 10s. of it to Mr. T r ev as ki s , and had kept the 30s. to himself for his own trouble, which had been agreed - Mr. Wilkins said that the indictment was nothing hut an at tetn pt of the father of the bob• to extort money from the prisoner, who only acted for Mr. Trevaskis. The Judge here stopped the case, on the ground that the indictment could not he sustained. The note itself was ge nuine, if the endorsement was had ; but, as M'Calmonts, or their cashkeeper would have paid it. even without the en dorsement, on ascertaining that the boy bad gone to sea in the ship, there did not appear to be any fraud, and the par ties might, if they liked, apply to the Court of Requests again. _ _ . A verdict of not guilty was then taken, and the prisoner was discharged. Mr. Wilkins said Mr. Trevaskis was ready to exonerate the prisoner from all blame. UTTERING A FORGED ORDER George Anderson, aged 26, was charged with having, at Liverpool, uttered a forged order for the payment of £2. 15s. with intent to defraud Samuel Fishbourne. The note was produced, and his Lordship said the indictment was so laid that it could not be sustained, insomuch as the offence char ged was a felonious forgery, while it was so laid as to be re duced to misdemeanour. Mr. Wilkins said thar, if the facts of the case were known it would be seen that the prisoner, who had never been in this country before, had been imposed upon by some of those vagabonds who prowled about the docks for the purpose of victimizing such ignorant persons. A verdict of not guilty was then taken, and the prisoner was discharged. POACHING John Culshatv, (before tried this day and acqnitted on a charge of poaching) was agai❑ placed at the bar, charged with an assault on two gamekeepers of Lord Derby, and also with being armed and in search of game with a net in the night, in a field at Burscough, the property of Squire Scar isbrick, on the 30th of July last. The case rested upon the indentity of the prisoner, and the Jury brought in a verdict of not guilty. The prisoner was discharged. One of the witnesses, a young man, named James Orrid, gave his evidence in a manner quite contradictory to that which he had given before the magistrates. His Lordship frequently cautioned him, but he persisted in his statement that the prisoner had not told him anything relative to the assault in question which tended to implicate himself. At the conclusion of the trial, his Lordship said the witness had twice that day been guilty of perjury : first, in the previous case, in which his brother was a witness, and now in this. His Lordship then ordered that he should be taken into custody, (which was done,) and that an indictment should be framed against him for wilful and corrupt perjury. RIOT AND CONSPIRACY John Guest was charged with conspiraoy, and with being present at an unlawful assembly at Broughton, near Man chester, on the 11th August last. The case was connected with the riots about that period in the manufacturing dis tricts, and involved no particulars of novelty or peculiar in terest. The prisoner, a dyer, was spoken to as being present in a mob of four hundred persons, who assaulted the gates of a dye-works, and broke some windows. The prisoner used a plank as a battering-ram. The works belonged to Messrs. Dewhurst and Sagar. It was found necessary to let the hands out for the day. The cry set up by the mob was, " Turn the hands out !" and it was sworn by one witness, that the prisoner said, with reference to the works, " It is the worst hole in all England." Thomas Gerard and Joseph Clarke were indicted for a similar offence. One of them, Gerard, pleaded guilty to one of the counts, and was set at liberty on giving sureties for his future good behaviour, his own in I:200, and two in:Bso each for two years. Clarke was then tried for attending an illegal meeting in Wigan, on the 15th August, and afterwards pro• ceeding towards Leigh, on the way to which they stopped some collieries and other works, by showing an overawing force. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of a riot, but there were palliatory circumstances in the prisoner's case. William Guest and Clarke were then brought up for sen tence for rioting, &c. After a suitable admonition, his lord ship sentenced Williams (who bad been long imprisoned,) to be fluffier imprisoned for three months, with hard labour, and then to enter into recognizances. Clarke was sentenced to six calendar months, and Guest to three months, with hard labour, and afterwards sureties. Neville Bancroft, an attorney, of Manchester, was charged with perjury, committed on his being examined on an arbi• tration. The defendant had been out on bail, and sat within the bar. The case arose out of two cross-actions, Allen, un attorney, against Lowe, and Lowe against Allen, which had been brought before the Court of Common Pleas, and refer red to arbitration, before Mr. Segar, the barrister. The ac cusation against the plaintiff was, that, when examined before the arbitrator, three questions were put to him, as follows ; First, whether he (defendant) had not, previously, said, with reference to some damage done to Mr. Lowe, through the negligence of Mr. Allen, an attorney employed by him, (and for whom defendant acted) he, Mr. Lowe, had not always said to him (defendant) that he should hold Mr. Allen him self responsible. This the defendant denied, saying that Lowe had not said so from the first, but only at the last. Second, whether he (defendant) had not told him (Lowe) £25 would he paid to him (the latter) in consideration of the damage done through the negligence of Allen, and that he (defendant) would procure him the money from Allen; this the defendant had also denied having said so. Third, whe ther he (defendant) had not been told by Lowe that it was of no use to go on with one of the actions, as the parties sued were not within the jurisdiction of ~,e Court, and whether he (defendant) had not replied, that if he had known that, he would not have proceeded with the action. He also de nied having so replied to that question. These denials, it was contended, amounted to the act of perjury, which it was brought to prove. Several witnesses were called, but the case completely broke down, there being no proof whatever of perjury having been committed in the case. His Lordship said, there was no ground whatever for the charge, and directed the jury to return a verdict of acquittal. William Greenwood was charged with perjury, in some evidence given before the magistrates, on an information laid under the Stage Coach Act ; but as it appeared that no offence under the act had been committed of which the ma gistrates could take cognizance, the indictment was stated by his Lordship to be grounded in error, and no perjury would, therefore, be committed. The jury were accordingly directed to give a verdict of not guilty. CONSPIRACY. William Hardy was charged with a conspiracy at Roch dale, in order to prefer a charge of larceny against a person named Hopwood, since deceased. The case, however, broke down on the first witness being called, and a verdict of not guilty was recorded. 'rliis closed the criminal business of the Assizes, and the court rose at a quarter to eight o'clock. NISI PREIS C OURT-SATURDAY, DEMURRER : ANDREWS v. OWENS.—This was an action on promises, to the pleas in which, on the part of the de fendant, the plaintiff demurred. The demurrer was argued this morning, by Mr. Crompton and Mr. Ramshay, who ap peared for the respective parties. It was entirely of a techni cal character; and, in the end, the learned Judge took time to consider his decision. BUSINESS OF THE ASSIZE.—The JUDGE asked the gen tlemen of the bar who were present what cases could go over to Mr. Baron Parke, in the other court, who would be able to try them in the course of the day. lle mentioned this so early in order that some arrangement might be made. Mr. KNOWLES said he was afraid that no satisfactory ar rangement could be made with respect to the cases remaining to be tried. The JUDGE replied that he must then make arrangement. The fact was that term had begun, and here they were sitting on the first day in Liverpool. It was true that the opening of term had been postponed ; but, at the same time, the paper must be got through as soon as possible. A line would be drawn upon the cause list, all the cases below which would be tried before Mr. Barow Parke. Thr subject then dropped, without any definite arrange ment being either suggested or made. REPLEVIN : WIGAN U. BOND.—The declaration in this case was in replevin, in which the plaintiff, William Wigan, complained of the defendant, John Bond, for having wrong fully taken certain goods and materials from premises in his occupation. The case for the plaintiff was conducted by Mr. James and Mr. Drinkwater ; Mr. Watson and Mr. Cardwell appeared for the defendant. Owing to the form of the action, the defendant had the right of commencing, and it appeared, that the plaintiff is a beerseller, at Wigan, and the defendant a tinplate-worker, in the same place. The defendant caused a distraint to be made upon plaintiff's effects for a year and half's rent, amounting to X2l. The plaintiff denied that he was the defendant's tenant in the manner and form set forth, and a long and uninteresting trial of that question followed. The Jury returned a verdict for the defendant. CROSS ACTIONS ON DISPUTED CLAIMS. KERR v. LAFFER.—The plaintiff in this case is Alexander Kerr, and the defendant Henry Laffer. The declaration was for wages for work and labour done, for commission money, and on an account stated. The defendant pleaded that he was never liable to certain payments, and a set off for money alleged to be due to him irom the plaintiff. Mr. Baines, with whom was Mr. Cowling, appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton for the defendant. The plaintiff, it appeared, went out to the coast of Africa in a vessel belonging to the defendant, called the Mary, on board of which he acted as captain and supercargo, to bring back palm oil. He was to receive £5 per month, and £4 per cent. commission on the returns of palm oil which be brought home ; and the action was brought to recover the balance of the account. After the case had been partly opened by Mr. Baines, Mr. KNOWLES, on the part of the defendant, proposed. that this and the following case of Latter v. Kerr should be referred. After some private discussion, it was agreed that all the matters in difference should be referred. ASS AULT FROSTY: v. CIIALONFR. — This was an action to recover damages for an assault. The parties belong to Liverpool, and are well known on 'Change. Mr. Wortley appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Knowles for the defendant. After some consultation between the parties, Mr. WORTLEY said he had the honour to appear on behalf of Mr. Froste, the plaintiff, who had brought this action against the defendant for an assault committed upon him by the defendant, an indignity to which Mr. Froste could not submit. His first impulse was to take the course which was very ordinary, but, perhaps, blameable, in the class of society to which he belonged. He was, however, persuaded by his friends to abandon that course, and appeal to the laws of the country. He had brought this action merely for the purpose of vindicating his own character; and he (Mr. Wortley) now understood, from an intimation that he had received, that his learned friend, Mr. Knowles, was willing, on the part of the defendant, to offer an apology for the indignity offered to Mr. Froste. If that apology on the part of his learned friend was satisfactory to him, the learned Judge and the Jury would be spar e d th e trouble of proceeding with the case. Mr. KNOWLES said he had the honour to appear for the defendant, Mr. Chaloner, who, like the plaintiff, was a highly respectable gentleman in this town, and who was now ready to do all which a gentleman ought to do who had offered an i,te l d l . a o v insult to another. Mr. Chaloner, therefore, authorised him (Mr. Knowles) to apologise to Mr. Froste for the blow he had struck under circumstances of provocation. He (Mr. K.) fi Having course though it right on behalf of Mr. Chaloner to say this, that done then, the very moment after he had given way to the feelings that led to the assault, he sent a friend to the plaintiff to make n hea done nh da ~i therefore, what n 0 objec tionthe i t ( c i N ) h a l t r he ti K i n i id?deorwdloteinisee)tsiteioc circumstances, his feelite feelingsthe nios to of a unqualifiedgentleman to apologise to Mr insufficient to do that now which lie had friend, indignity s-s. h e iie Froste N h i a r d . f \ n o k n i: o t t l i l l , n T e r L i i s iz t e i injury r s y h a i i ‘ ln d v h , could only add that the plaintiff, after he had . . however, he was suffered,pul public apology considered offered a privatelearned d y After the willing to consent to a verdict for the plaintiff for.l A verdict was then entered for the plaintiff. o'. Damages 40s. BIRD AND OTIIERS, ASSIGNEES, V. BASS A•• OTHERS. —The plaintiffs are the assignees of th e estate ZDid David Robertson, of this town, and they brought effects of the action against the defendants to recover the sum of £lBO, the CCeds of certain property belonging to the bank pro rupt w hi c h they seized in execution on the 26th January last. Me, Waits and Mr, NVhtotin appeitred tor tho plAtAtiffa I Mr. Wortley anti Mr, Compton for the flefiinjanta. Ou the part el the plaintiffs it appeared, that Mr. LobErt son had been for some in insolvent circumstances, and, it being expected that an execution would issue against his effects at the suit of the defendants, it was considered pru dent by the plaintiffs and other creditors that a fiat in bank ruptcy should be issued. JrA. Watson, attorney, was in structed to take this step. On Saturday. the 21st January, he proceeded to London for this purpose, and, on the fol lowing Monday, the 23d, the fiat was struck. The act of bankruptcy was a notice by llobertson, under the act of last session, dated on the 21st. On the evening of the 23d Mr. Watson wrote from London to the solicitors of the defend ants, Messrs. Stockley and Thompson, giving them notice that the fiat had been issued, and requiring them not to pro ceed with the execution and levy on the effects in the defend ant's house, No. 3, Northumberland-terrace, Everton. Messrs. Stockley and Thompson have a box in the Postoffice, into which the letter was put at the usual period after the arrival of the London mail. It was fetched from thence, by whom did not appear, and taken to their office, in Castle street, and it was contended that this was sufficient noti ce of the existence of the tiat. In the meantime, time having been previously granted to Mr. Robertson, the execution pro ceeded. In support of this part of the case it was shown that Dry, the officer, and an assistant went to the house for the purpose of making the seizure. The assistant remained on the premises, and the servant girl who admitted him said that this took place at twenty minutes past ten. On time morning in question it was shown that Mr. Stockley arrived at the office before his partner ; that he lived at Rock Ferry, which he left by the boat leaving there at half-past nine ; and the plaintiffs insisted that the boat would arrive at. George's Pier at a quarter before ten, and that he would arrive at the office and read the letter before ten o'clock, in time to prevent the execution proceeding. It would take twenty-three minutes to walk from their office to No. 3, Northumberland-terrace. Evidence was produced to this effect. Mr. WORTLEY then replied, con tending, from the f ac t s adduced by the pl a i n tiff s th emse l v es, that it was clear the ex ecution was in the house for some period before it was possi ble that Mr. Stockley_ could have read the letter. The jury, after an hour's consideration, returned a verdict for the defendants. ALLEGED BREACH OF CONTRACT ATKINSON AND OTTIER:;;;: BLAKE AND OTTIERS•—It was alleged in the declaration of this case, that the defend ants had contracted with the plaintiffs to turnish them, at a certain price, with 12,000 boxes of soap of a quality which should be fit for the Jamaica market ; but they had, instead of sending soap of that quality, sent an inferior article, whereby the plaintiffs had been damaged. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cowling represented the plaintiffs; Mr. Baines and Mr. Drinkwater the defendants. The plaintiffs were merchants in the island of Jamaica, and and in May, 1810, they made the contract retell cd to, through their agents in Liverpool, Messrs. Baring Brothers. The defendants are soap manufacturers in this town. The evi dence, which was particularly uninteresting, related to the quality of the soap shipped, from which it appeared that a large portion of the boxes forwarded were unlit for the market. The damage sustained by this part of the shipment was stated to be between £3OO and 1:400. The plaintiffs had cancelled the other part of the contract. For the defendant a number of persons were called, who stated, generally, that they were the parties who had made the soap, and that the samples produced, which were said to have been brought from Jamaica, were not the same which had been sent out. The soap sent was fit for the Jamaica market. Mr. KNOWLES, in his reply, made some strong comments on the effort to prove fraud against the plaintiffs, who, he re peated, were highly respectable men. The trial lasted several hours, and it terminated by the jury returning a verdict for the plaintiffs. Damages 4100, costs 40s. The Court rose at ten o'clock. NISI PRIUS COURT—MoNDAY, COLLISION DAWBER v. SHAND.—The plaintiff in this case is Mr. James Dawber and the defendant Mr. Wm. Shand. The declaration stated that the plaintiff was possessed of a gig, and the defendant of a coach or carriage; and that the de fendant's servant had driven the carriage so negligently that the plaintiff's gig was thereby injured. The defendant merely pleaded not guilty. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Martin conducted the plaintiff's case; Mr. Baines appeared for the defendant. Mr. KNOWLES, in stating the case to the jury, said the plaintiff was a veterinary surgeon, residing in Liverpool, and the defendant was a merchant in this town, of great respect ability, whose private residence was at Allerton. The action arose out of a collision, on the 27th of June last, between a gig which the plaintiff was driving, and Mr. Shand's carriage, which .was proceeding in a contrary direction. The plaintiff was on his way from Liverpool to Allerton, on professional business, and on the road there was a sharp turn which re quired care in passing. The person who was driving was proceeding at an ordinary pace, a trot, and just before he ar rived at the corner he was met by the defendant's carriage, which was going towards Liverpool. At that moment the plaintiff was driving on the left hand side, and almost close to the parapet; the carriage was being driven at a brisk rate, and, instead of being on the other side of the road, as it ought, it was very near the right. The two vehicles, conse quently, were very nearly opposite to each other. The de fendant's coachman, seeing the approaching danger, endea voured, as much as possible, to avoid a collision, and he par tially succeeded, but the hind wheel of the carriage caught the gig, which was thereby upset, the shaft broken, and the plaintiff's servant thrown out. Two ladies were in the de fendant's carriage, who apologised to the plaintiff for the ac cident, hoped he was not hurt, and drove on. As soon as the plaintiff found out to whom the carriage belonged, he wrote the following letter to him:— " June 29 " presume you heard of the serious damage done to my gig and harness, through the negligence of your coach man ; and I should feel obliged by your coming to my sta bles in Basnett-street to see the same, when I am sure you will at once give directions to have them repaired." To this letter the defendant sent the following reply " SIR,--I have received your note of the 29th instant, and am glad to find you consider yourself responsible for the da mage done to my carriage by the gross negligence of the person whom you have entrusted. You may see the damage by calling at my stables, and you may give the necessary di rections to have them repaired as soon as you please." (Great laughter.) He (Mr. Knowles) did not know whether Mr. Shand was generally in a facetious humour, but he hoped he would pay for the damage, which, by the negligence of his servant, the plaintiff had sustained ; and then he might enjoy his jokes as long as he pleased. The—suin claimed for the damage to the'gig was £5 19s. fid• Witnesses, who observed the a ccident from a field adjoin ing the road, were the n ca lled, and their evidence supported the statement of the l earne d co unsel. One of them stated, that the mare in th e pl a i n tiff' s g ig was as quiet as a lamb, and might have been h e ld b y a thread. Mr. BAINES then a dd resse d the j u ry for the defendant, and said he should pr ove t h a t the mare in the plaintiff's gig was wholly unfit to be driven, she never having been broken and her mouth being unformed • that shortly before the ac cident he was drivi ng i n a furious and careless manner, with a loose rein, and th a t at t h e t i me the vehicles met, the plain tiff, perhaps unwitti ng l y , pu ll e d the wrong rein, and thereby the accident took place. He contended that it bad been clearly proved, by the plaintiff's own witnesses, that the horses had passed each other, without coming into contact , and that it was the v e hi c l es ' which had struck each other ; whereas if the carriage had been on the wrong side, the horses must have first been in collision. Witnesses were then ca ll e d ; a t the end of which the jury said they would not trouble Mr. Knowles to reply, as they were prepared to give th e i r ver di c t for the plaintiff. A ver dict was then returned for the plaintiff, damages £5 19s 6d. ANSDELL V. 2.I 4 CORMIC K. . The plaintiff is an att orney i n Liverpool, and the action, which was undefended, was brought to recover £39 1-Is 11d, the amount of a bill of costs. Verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed. ACTION AGAINST A TRUSTEE. OGDEN AND OTHER. ASSIGNEES v. STONE.—This was an action llrought by Wm. H. Ogden, and Henry Wood, assig nees of William Robinson, an insolvent, against George Stone. The declaration stated that the defendant was in debted to the plaintiffs for money lent, and upon an account stated. The defendant pleaded that he was not liable. Mr. Knowles and Mr. Cowling were counsel for the plain tiffs ; Mr. Baines and Mr. Martin for the defendant. Mr. KNOWLES said the defendant was an attorney in this town, and he had to allege against him that he had received a sum of upwards of £BOO, which under the circumstances he was not entitled to keep. The action was brought by the assignees of the estate of Robinson ; and the sum in question was the whole property of the man, so that if Mr. Stone was entitled to retain it, there would not be a farthing left for the general body of creditors. The question for the jury would be whether the mode in which the £BOO in dispute had been paid to the defendant was not a fraudulent preference. Mr. Robinson was a shipwright, in Norfolk-street, near the Queen's Dock, and, apparently, he did a good business, for he employed, sometimes as many as twenty men and boys. Between March, 1841, when he commenced business, and the time when he ceased, about the end of the year, he got into debt to the amount of £llOO, an amount quite independ ent of the debt, or the pretended debt, which it was said he owed to Mr. Stone. In November he took the benefit of the Insolvent Act ; and it was about then discovered that, on the 25th of October, he had paid a sum of £872 to Mr. Stone. It was said that Mr. Stone had lent hint this money, which was settled upon his wife, and he (Robinson) had paid this money back to him ; now he (Mr. Knowles) should be able to establish that this payment was voluntarily paid by Robinson, and under circumstances which rendered it in valid according to the provisions of the Insolvent Act; in otherwords, that it was a fraudulent preference. The learned counsel then detailed the circumstances which appear in evi dence ; and called the following witnesses : William Eden was the first called. He said I am an an chor-smith, and was formerly in the employ of Robinson, whose works were near the docks. He commenced business in March, 1841. He had a smithy there. I was his manager and bookkeeper. 1 know the defendant Mr. Stone : lie is a solicitor. In September, 1841, Mr. Furness's clerk called two or three times to demand payment of a bill of from £lOO to £l2O. There were many creditors, Mr. Gregson, Messrs. Ashton and Naylor, and others who called often, some of them two or three times a day. They continued calling till the latter end of October. After the Bth of October Robin son wholly absented himself from the place, and I had to meet him at different public-houses. About that time I went many times to Mr. Stone's office, where I saw Robin son and Mr. Stone's brother. There were messages left there for me where to meet Robinson. I remember a Dutch vessel wanting a chain-cable. I went to Mr. Wood's for it, and Mr. Wood objected to send it until they 'sad seen Robinson, as the midsummer account was not settled. I went to Robinson about the promised payment on the 9th October; this was on the 7th. Robin son wished Me to ask the captain for the money the day after, but I did not like to ask him for the money so soon, and I raised the money myself. The captain paid me the money the week following. On the evening of the Bth I went to the Earl Grey, public-house, to meet Robinson, to take the money, a l ong w ith other monies, to hi m. I had £3O or £4O. The Ea r l Grey is nearly two mil es f rom t h e wor k s. Mr. Robinson s e eme d much pleased with w h at I h a d b rought him, and he told m e he wanted to reali ze a sum of money as quickly as possible to pay Mr. Ston e , w h o was one of the trustees under a deed of settlement for £BOO, which he had made to his wife; he said the creditors had began to be so infernally bothersome that lie should not come much more nothin g ally ; I will give near the place, for one of them , Mr. Keeler, had waited at his house the night before till eleven o'clock t o see hi m, an d he would take care not to be so caught again. Thi s was a ll t h at passed on this occasion. Pre vi ous to this, a b out t h e l atter end of September, I asked Rob i nson to all ow th e blockma kers to make a little stock forh a sale, as th e foreman had com plained to do ; he said, , you a reason for that bye and , bye." The next meeting I , No o ; never t o mind of them tthe had with him was on the stock, n Litn I v don t of Oct o b er, when he seat f or inog v me to dine with him at an eating-house in Cable-street. After dinner we went into a public-house adjoining, kept by one Andrews, and he said to me there, " I want to have a little serious conversation with you ; I w i sh you to be secret. ' I told him if it was of consequence I would rather not hear it. He considered a few moments, and then said, " You may as well hear it now, as you must ultiamtely hear it : I have given a bill for £lOO to Messrs. Mather and Co., which will fall due in a few days, but I do not intend to take it up, for it will be as much as I can do to realize the amount wanted for Stone." I then asked him what he intended to do ? I told him there was a large amount owing by Messrs. Grote and Hatchett, and Hemingway ; lie said, " I have got them to accept bills for that amount, and they are now in my P6alot,i' 7 ravaatliaa tra 1.114 a, that with tta pataoroll clotvaa. ho had tri Liierpuol i it would bu r» great pity for Wu, to go to the wall without corm, effort or other; if he did not like to do it personally, would he allow me to call on some of the principal creditors, and make them an offer of 10s. or 12s. in the pound. He said " No, for what with the amount owing. and what I can realize, I Filial' have very very little more than what will pay the trustees. I have been advised what to do ; I shall pay the trustees and no one else. I shall then keep the shop open till some creditor conies in with an execution, and then I shall get them to sign a release, taking what is left." A day or two after that be asked me if I could make room for him to lodge with me, and his wife and child would stay with her father, as he was afraid of some of the creditors serving him with a writ and making him a bankrupt, as the creditors:would cause him great annoyance, and it would insure the payment to the trustees. This was on the 18th of October. He said, if Messrs. Mather and Co. came to inquire whether their bill was all right, 1 was to tell them lie was busy collecting money to take it up. He said, that if the creditors would not sign a release, taking what stock was left, he would take the benefit of the insolvent act. On the 21st October I saw him again at Guest's public , house, near St. Michael's Church. I had no money with me then. About £3OO had then been collected, which I had handed over to him. He remarked that I was low spirited, and he said, " Man, keep your spirits up, it's all right." I told him I was placed in an unpleasant situation, and I was tired of it. tie replied, " Oh, it's all right, I have paid the greater part of the money to Stone, and I have ar ranged with Stone to send me a note pressing for payment." Tliat note he said, by 'hewing it to the creditors, would set him all right with them if they made any bother. He had been absent from the works all the time. In his absence either myself or my son received the letters. I met Robin son many times in Mr. Stone's office about this time. On the Ist or 2d of November, Mr. Robinson desired me to go to Shand's public-house in Wapping, and inquire the price of the good-will and fixtures of it, as he had some inten tion of taking it : he said he would take the place if we could get it moderate, and put his sister's name over the door. He wished me also to write concerning a smithy and buildings which were to be let in Norfolk-street, and he would commence business in his father-in-law's name, (Win. Henderson,) or in my name, if I thought proper, and give me half the business; he would get £2OO or £3OO from the trustees to stock the place; and he thought between the two he should make a very comfortable living. On the 19th December Mr. Southern fetched me to meet Robinson at a public-house in Gradwell-street. Mr. Southern was an ac quaintance of both of us. Robinson then told me he wished me to ask advice from some solicitor as to arresting him, for he was afraid of some of the creditors making him bankrupt. He said, I wish to take care of the stock, if possible, and if you think proper you need not be particular about the amount of your debt, for lie expected Mr. Furness in with an execution the following week. Mr. Southern remarked that we should want some money, to pay the attorney for the advice. Mr. Robinson then gave me seven shillings iu silver. Sir. Southern advised me to go to Mr. Thompson, solicitor, in Newington Bridge, and I went there; when I returned from Mr. Thompson's I told Mr. Robinson that Mr. Thomp son could serve him with a writ by 2 o'clock. but could get judgment out the following Thursday week. He remarked that would b- too late, for Furness would go in before and seize the stock; but it would be time enough to save the sheds and bu lilings, which would be a tine start to begin business again. I declined having mote to do with it. 1 believe that Mr. Southern is now dead. There was a meeting of credi tors on the 21st December. Before that a great many arti cles had been taken out of the place and sold for less than their value in order to realize money. Very heavy discounts were allowed by Mr. Robinson in order to realize money. Some carronades and their carriages were sent to Messrs. Fawcett and Preston's, with a message saying that the cap tain would call to look at two more to match. This was he said to satisfy a debt due to Messrs. Fawcett, for they were the only creditors be cared about if he commenced business again. He told me to enter them in the day-book as if they had been sent some weeks previous. Those carronades were re turned by Messrs. Fawcett to Mr. Ogden, one of the as signees. A meeting of the creditors was held on the 21st December, at his office ; he came down there, and Mr. Stone's brother with him. Mr. Stone's brother got a sheet of writing-paper, and began making out a stock list. Pre vious to the creditors coming, Mr. Stone had left. I re marked to him, " Where is your cash-book ? " and he re plied, " D—n it, man ! have you no sense ? It will never do to let them see that book, for poor Stone and me have been hard at work all Sunday and Sunday night, making up another for them." 1 then remarked about Mr. Stone making out a stock list. Mr. Robinson said that I (witness) had had enough of annoyance with the creditors, and it was better for Stone to make it out. When the creditors came, and found what little was left, they refused to have anything to do with him. On the Friday before, namely the 17th of December, Robinson came down, unlocked his drawers in the office, took down the files of invoices, examined them, and, as he did so, kept tearing them up till the floor was completely strewed with papers, and then he directed them to be taken into the smithy and burnt. They were burnt. On the Thursday following Mr. Furness put in an execution and sold the whole of the stock; arid Mr. Robinson gave instructions to the auctioneer, in my presence, to sell the furniture and hand the balance over to him. The whole sale produced from £l5O to Xl6O, of which Robinson got a balance of £5B. The furniture was not sold there, but sent to the auction rooms. Messrs. Trotter and Hodgkins were the auctioneers. In the beginning of January, 1842, I had ano ther interview with Robinson at M'Kenzie's, in Duke-street. He desired me to go to Mr. Stone's, and I did so the next day. I saw the defendant, who said to me, "We want to make a confidant of you ; but it will not do for me to be seen in this matter, for Robinson wishes you to arrest him, that he may take the benefit of the Insolvent Act ;" and if I thought proper he would send me to an attorney. I then left him, saying that I would ; and I advised with Mr. Ogden, one of the assignees. Mr. Stone said all the expenses would be paid. I was at this time a creditor for £26 wages, and £5 more for commission and money lent. I entered Robinson's service in the beginning of August, and from that time up to the Bth December lie bad paid none of his creditors except small ones for £l, or so : sometimes he paid them £l, or so, in order to keep them quiet. His debts at this time were about £l,lOO. I went to Mr. Yates, solicitor, and gave bins instructions to proceed against Robinson, who was ultimately arrested, and sent to Lancaster in May, 1842. He was re manded for nine months. I was present at Lancaster when Mr. Stone, the defendant, was examined before Mr. Commissioner Bowen. This was in July. Mr. Stone then stated lie had received the money on the 21st and on the 25th October, 1841—in the whole, £872 ; that he had received it in two payments from Robinson. He said he had received it in money and bills. I do not recollect any thing further that he said on that occasion. Cross-examined by Mr.Es.—The defendant said to the Insolvent Commissioner he was a trustee under Robin son's marriage settlement, and he produced the deed. He mentioned that Mr. Henderson and his late partner, Mr. Kenyon, were the trustees. lie stated that the trustees had lent £BOO to Robinson on his warrant of attorney ; and that he found that that warrant had not been duly filed. I will not swear that he said he considered that if he did not obtain the money the trustees would be liable. He said he had sent one or two notes to Robin son pressing for payment of the money, but I do not recol lect whether he said it was for the security of himself and his brother trustees. I recollect him saying he had incurred some responsibility, but 1 do not know why. I considered Robinson's proposals in the last three months of 1841 very dishonest; and I communicated them to Mr. Ogden in January or February following. I was not examined upon them at Lancaster ; I was examined there only about the sale and its proceeds. I cannot swear whether I stated to the commissioner that the insolvent had told me be wanted to realize a sum of money as quickly as possible, in order to pay it to the trustees. I caunot swear whether I told the commissioner what he said about the stock, or Mather's bill. \Vas not asked the question. To the best of my re collection I told the commissioner that he said he would pay trustees and no one else; but I cannot positively swear whe ther 1 did or did not, 1 believe, but am not positive. I told the commissioner that he said he was afraid of the creditors making him a bankrupt. I did not tell the commissioner that he had said if the creditors would not give him a release lie would take the benefit of the act ; nor did I tell him about the note from Mr. Stone, which the insolvent said would set him all right with his creditors. I did not tell the commis sioner that he said Mr. Stone would advance him £2OO or £3OO to set up business again. I did not tell the commis sioner that the insolvent told me I need not be particular about the amount of my debts ; or that I was to blind the men. I did not tell the commissioner that the insolvent said to me that he and Stone had been up all Sunday night making another cash-book, or that the defendant said, " we want to make a confidant of you." I have never sent to borrow £l5 from Mr. Henderson, the insolvent's father-in-law. I sent for it in the light of borrowing, as I was advised to do. I did not get the money, nor did I expect to get it. The witness was then cross-examined with the view of testing the accuracy of his recollection of the dates to which he had spoken. No one was present with witness at those conversations with the insolvent, except Mr. Southeran, who is dead. Re-examined.—Mr. Robinson is present in court now. I was examined at Lancaster by Mr. Venables, the barrister, and I answered every question which he put to rue. The book produced is that which was made up by Mr. Robinson. About £l6 or £l7 have been realized for the estate of Mr. Robinson, and probably there will be 30s. more. I question whether it will make so much as £lB 10s. . . . Edwin Eden, son of the last witness, and also a clerk in Mr. Robinson's service, proved that a great number of cre ditors were in the habit of calling there for money. but they did not get it. Recollected the defendant's brother being there. In October, witness took up some carronades to Messrs. Fawcett with a message, that some captain would call in a day or two to look out some more to match. Mr. Robinson tore up the invoices, and told witness to burn them, which he did. Letters used to be brought by the defendant's clerk, witness's father, but witness did not know of any from him to Robinson. William Manifold, foreman of the blockmakers in Mr. Robinson's service, also proved that creditors frequently called ; and that he had prevented witness from adding to the stock. This was in October. After that all their men were turned away, except three. Mr. Robinson came to the works very seldom afterwards. Several witnesses who had called for debts, proved that after the Bth of October, Robinson was not to be found at the place; and that they had never been able to obtain their money. A clerk to the auctioneers proved that after selling under the execution which had been put in upon the stock, the household furniture of Robinson was sold by his directions for £4O, which was paid over to him. Cross-examined.—The furniture was not sold under the execution. The sale took place on the 23d December, and the money was paid over a few days afterwards. A clerk to Mr. Furniss proved that his claim on Robinson was for £l2O, for which the execution referred to was issued. Mr. Thompson, the solicitor, was called, but he did no' answer. This was the case for the plaintiffs. Mr. BAINES then addressed the jury for the defendant. The action, he said, had been brought against a respectable attorney in this town to recover a large amount of money re ceived by him in his character of trustee; and an attempt had, in the progress of the case, been made to mix bitn up with Mr. Robinson, upon whom also it had been sought to throw all kinds of obloquy. This was a very serious question to Mr. Stone, and one at which it behoved the jury to look with calmness, especially as by means of that unprincipled witness Eden they were asked to believe that Mr. Stone had acted improperly. He (Mr. Baines) hoped, however, before the case closed, to show the jury that Mr. Stone had done just as any other man would in the same situation. The jury had not, as yet, by any means heard all the matters which it was necessary for them to know in order to make the case intelligible ; and, therefore, it would be his duty to fill up the meagre outline which the learned counsel and the witnesses for the plaintiff had sketched. Mr. Joseph Wilfred Robinson, it seemed, was about to be married in the year 1810. Before the marriage took place a settlement was ex pected, of which three persons were appointed trustees—viz. his father-in-law, Mr. Henderson, Mr. Kenyon, an attorney, now deceased, and Mr. Stone, the defendant, who was Mr. Kenyon's partner. Mr. Stone was in no way connected with Mr. Robinson, and he accepted the office of trustee merely as an act of friendship, having been recommended to it by his partner, Mr. Kenyon. According to the trust o: the settlement a sum of £BOO, then lying in th e Ro y al Bat ! of Liverpool, was to be paid to trustees for the benefit, in the first instance, of his wife ;—she was to receive death i in terest to her sole and separate use ; in c ase of her was to be received by 111 r. Robinson , a nd if Mr. Rob inson became bankrupt or insolvent, the interest was to accumulate, have both in case both parents were dead , the children were to both the principal and the accumulations of interest. The .CB9O, then, was paid to the account of the trustees. There was, he ought to mention, a proviso in the m arr iage bottle to rat OM, in MN 44 Wild rh4UI4 glia a Wrlttoo 6,UtUiity to the tritatt)24, shay hoi - siLl he at liberty the mini of i`..?00, or any part of it, to the husband, he giving such security as they should think right to take. The marriage took place on the 30th of November, 1810. On the 27th of March, 1841, the trustees were applied to by Mrs. Robinson to ad vance £BOO to her husband, partly for the purpose of his buying the goodwill of a public-house, which it was intended that Mrs. Robinson should manage, and partly for the pur pose of helping Rubinson in his own business of a shipwright. The learned counsel here read the letter of Mrs. Robin son, and contended that it was an authority to them to ad vance the money strictly within the provisions of the trust. The security, which it occurred to Mr. Stone to take, was a warrant of attorney, which was executed by Robinson in March, 1841. A warrant of attorney no doubt would have been sufficient if a most inadvertent omission had not oc curred. Where a warrant of attorney was given as against a person who was a trader, and lie became bankrupt or in solvent, it was unavailing, arid mere waste paper, unless it was filed within a certain time, and in a particular manner. About six or seven months after this instrument had been taken, it was discovered that, by the merest inadvertence, it bad not been filed in the regular manner; and when Mr. Stone found out that, it occurred to him that he was placed in a situation of the greatest possible danger, having in fact been advancing trust money upon security which was perfectly valueless in case of insolvency or bankruptcy. As soon as he made this discovery, he applied to Mr. Robinson, first by word of mouth and afterwards by letter, in the most ur gent terms, to pay the money with the least possible delay. What, indeed, could have been more natural than to apply to the husband, seeing that the security which he thought good turned out invalid? Mr. Stone wrote two letters to Mr. Robinson. The first was dated on the 16th October, [the learned counsel read the letter,] in which Mr. Stone informed him that the trustees considered the security in sufficient. Mr. Robinson promised to make a payment upon the following Monday, but he failed, and the defendant's anxiety, therefore, became very great. On the 19th Mr. Stone again wrote to Robinson as follows :- 1 _ " 58, Castle-street, 1841. " DEAR SIR,—As you have broken your promise by not making any payment upon account of the £BOO and interest secured by the warrant of attorney, we are under the neces sity of informing you, that unless we receive payment of the whole or greater part in the course of to-morrow, we shall be compelled to proceed, under the warrant of attorney, to a sale. This we trust you will see the necessity of preventing.—Yours. respectfully,—KENYON and STONE." A letter more distinctly pressing for payment than this could not have been written. Before he (Mr. Baines) proceeded further, he would observe, that the money paid to Mr. Stone was a boncifide payment, and in order to make it invalid, the jury must be satisfied that the payment by Robinson was a voluntary payment, and not the result of pressure by Mr. Stone. If it was the result of pressure, there could not be the least question that Mr. Stone was entitled to re tain this money for the purposes of the trust. After these letters Several interviews took place between Mr. Stone and Robinson, and £672 were paid in cash and bills in consequence of these letters. At that time Robinson was indebted to the firm of Messrs. Kenyon and Stone between £lO and £5O for law business, which they had done for him ; and, when this money was brought to them, Mr. Stone reminded him of it, and it was agreed that £-14 should be appropriated in its liquidation. In reality £629 were paid on account of the loan of £BOO and interest. Still there were £2OO not forthcoming. Mr. Stone and his co trustee were liable for that; and it would be found that Robinson raised this £2OO by a sale of the stock and good will of the public-house. It was at length agreed that Mr. Henderson, the co-trustee of Mr. Stone, who had sold it to Robinson for £3OO, of which £2OO had been paid and £lOO had been secured by a promissory note, should buy the public-house from him again. This was done ; Mr. Hen derson paid the £2OO, which went to make up the trust money of £BOO, and gave up the note for the £lOO which had not been paid to him in the first instance. In that way the whole suni was accounted for ; and he contended that, if this account was true, and be should be able to prove it, there could not be a doubt of the defendant being entitled to a ver dict. After this statement the learned gentleman examined at considerable length the evidence given for the plaintiffs, contending that the testimony of Eden was altogether impro bable. Joseph Wilfred Robinson was then sworn, and he said, I commenced business as a shipwright in Liverpool, in March, 1841. I married o❑ the 30th of November before, on which occasion there was a marriage settlement, dated the 28th of November, 1840. [The marriage settlement was here put in, and the power read to lend the money.] On the 27th March, 1841, my wife applied to the trustees to lend me the money. [The application was here read.] About that time I took the Cumberland House Tavern, in Norfolk -street, from Mr. Henderson, my father-in-law, and one of the trustees of the marriage settlement. I paid him £2OO in cash, and gave him a promissory note for £lOO. My place of business as a shipwright was in the same street. I took the house on the 6th April. .1:200 of the £BOO was invested in the public-house, and the remainder was used to carry on my business of a ship wright. My wife was to carry on the public-house. I gave the warrant of attorney produced as security for the £BOO. [Produced and read.] Mr. Stone applied to me about the be ginning of September, for the £BOO ; he had previously applied for his own bill, which was £44. He said be was not satis fied with the security for the £BOO, and he should be obliged to call it in immediately. The application was made to me by Mr. Stone in his own office. Ile made several applica tions for it subsequently, and I told him that, as soon as I could get money in, I perhaps should be able to pay him a part. The witness here produced the defendant's letter to him of the 16th October : it stated that the trustees had determined to place the money on mortgage, and not on a warrant of attorney, and requested him to pay the whole, or a part, in the course of a few days. On the 19th of October he received another letter, in consequence of which witness called on the defendant on the 23d October and paid him £672, composed of two bills, one of Mr. Grote's for £l4O 145., and the other of Mr. Hemingway for £258, and the rest in cash. The defendant, when witness took him this money, asked, for his own debt. I paid this money in this way, £6OO towards the principal, and the rest went for in terest upon the £BOO. Mr. Stone wished the remaining £2OO to be paid immediately. I told him I could not give it him there and then, but if I sold the public-house I might manage it. An agreement was entered into in a few days, between Mr. Henderson and myself, that Mr. Hender son should take the house for £2OO, and return the promis sory note which I had given him for £lOO, which made up the terms upon which I had taken it. I had been carrying on a good business in 1841, and at the time when this trans action took place 1 was not insolvent, nor had I ever thought of applying to the Court. I called a meeting of my creditors in December, 1841, and exhibited to them a statement of affairs, which was prepared by Mr. Rober; Stonc, with my assistance. I put down the stock at the cost price. The plaintiffs were present at that meeting. I requested that the statement might not be taken away, but it was, and produced at Lancaster. [The statement was here produced.] The value of the stock therein described was £9OO. The stock was put down at its cost price, and it sheaved 20s. in the pound, but the creditors declined to come in. Two execu t►ons were issued out ; I apprehended one from Mr. Furness, and under that the stock was sold. Messrs. Mather had a writ out at the same time. I was not arrested till May fol lowing. I went to live at Woolton because my wife had bad health, but I came frequently to Liverpool, and was openly to be seen. The witness Eden came into my employment about August.—The witness then contradicted, seriatim, all the statements which Eden had given in his evidence as to the topics of their conversation at the various times and places which will be found in his testimony. Nothing, in deed, could be more distinct and positive than his contradic tions. There was no arrangement, continued the witness, between myself and Mr. Stone to pay the money ; and it was very inconvenient for me to pay it. Ido not think that the man Southern is dead. I never in Southern's presence asked Eden to enquire the price of the fixtures and good-will of the public-house. I never mentioned my sister's name at all to them. I never gave is. to pay an attorney. I never came to an arrangement with Messrs. Fawcett and Preston to give them a preference, nor did I ever destroy any letters or invoices. It was at my request that Mr. Stone's brother made out an account of the stock. My property sold under the execution was sold at a very great sacrifice. I never sent Eden to Mr. Stone to ask him to arrest me. Eden appeared at Lancaster, and he did not mention there a single word of what be has said here to-day. I was remanded for nine months unless the £2OO paid by my father-in-law was given up to the assignee. I remained in prison nine months. On the enquiry there, Mr. Stone said the reason why he pressed for payment was, that he had neglected filing the warrant of attorney. I never said to Eden, that if 1 could only get the trustees paid I did not care a d—n for the rest of the creditors. Cross-examined by Mr. KNowLEs.-4 came out of prisou on the 13th March last ; and I have not begun business again. I never gave any mortgage of my furniture and good-will of the public-house. My debts in six months after I com menced bueiness were £1,059. There is no book to show how that amount was contracted ; nor can I tell what amount I paid to all my creditors together in that time. I paid Furness himself between £4O and £5O, besides what he get by the execution. I do not recollect whether Eden used to meet me at different public-houses for the purpose of giving me the money which he had collected. I never took Ma ther's bill up, but I intended to do so, no doubt.—The wit ness was further cross-examined at great length. William Henderson, father-in-law of the last witness, and co-trustee of the defendant, said, he c on cu r red with the defendant in his pressure upon Robinson for payment of the motley lent him. This witness went on to describe the ar rangement with regird to the public-house, as already stated. In cross-examination the witness stated, that whilst Ro .. binson was in Lancaster Castle, his wife lived in witness's house. 'Witness is now carrying on the public-house for his own benefit. Lawrence Driscoll proved the signature of the parties to the marriage settlement. Robert Stone, Superintendent of the Liverpool Corpora tion Schools, and brother of the defendant, said that up to March, 1812, from the March preceding, he was assisting his brother. Saw Mrs. Robinson sign the authority to the trus tees to advance the £BOO. The witness also proved several personal applications from the defendant to Robinson for the £lOO. Referring to the evidence of Eden, he said that the insolvent had asked him to assist him in making out a state ment of his affairs ; and witness suggested what he should enter in it from the receipts and memoranda which he pro duced. Robinson entered them himself in the book from the rough vouchers that he produced. 'Witness did not do this on a Sunday as represented ; and he had formerly been with Mr. Crook, the accountant, 4 years. Mr. Blackett, clerk to Mr. Rogerson, attorney, at Lan caster, proved that at the hearing of the insolvent the defen dant stated to the court his position with regard to the war rant of attorney. Cross-examined.—Could not tell whether the insolvent was remanded for diminishing his property, or for fraudu lently making away with it. This was the defendant's case; and on Mr. KNOWLES rising to reply, The FOREMAN of the JURY said they were prepared to give their opinion without troubling the learned counsel, if that course were not irregular. The JUDGE told the jury they must be perfectly satisfied that they understood the real question. The question was whether Robinson had been pressed for payment; if they believed that Stone had pressed and urged him, then Mr. Stone had made out a sufficient case. Mr. KNOWLES.—My lord, and would not the question also be whether he had paid in consequence of that pressure ? The JUDGE.—Yes, certainly. Mr. KNowtms said so great was his respect for the opinion of a jury that, if he distinctly understood they had made up their minds, lie would not trouble them ; but, not knowing what their opinion was, he would go through the evidence to show them, from it, that the payment had not been made from pressure. The learned counsel then contested this point at considerable length, and with great ingenuity, con tending that Eden's testimony was perfectly credible, and that the marriage settlement was drawn up so as to enable the insolvent to cheat his creditors. The JUDGE, in summing up, told the jury there were three questions for their consideration—whether Robinson bad made the payment, and if he had, whether he had made it with the intent of taking the benefit of the insolvent act, and ne xt, whether it was a voluntary payment. The jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff for £782 ; damages 40s. MOTION TOR A NEW TRIAL Doc DEM. TIBDETS AND I)TIIERS C. Low.—This is an action in ejectme n t, i n the first or Salford list. It was tr i ed early in the assize s . an d a verd i ct returne d f or th e plaintiff. Mr. MARTIN now moved for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against evidence. The JUDGE, on bearing an affidavit, granted a rule nisi. RECORD WITHDRAWN. _ SonNsrowE V called on at nquar ter-past seven ; w h en i t appear i ng t h at t h e pr i nc ip a l witness was rat in Alto/ Am*, Mr. Czototou t for Ow p101414T, Rich, eat,/ Mu mu, (I, A.O CION PCR WO D LADGUR RANIPLIN AND ANOTHLII.V. CASE AND ANOTHRII.--Thig was an action for work and labour done, in which Mr. Knowles and Mr. Crompton appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. Baines, with whom was Mr. Martin, for the defendants. The plaintif f s are architects in this town, and the defendants are Mr. John Deane Case and Mr. William Pritchard, of Birkenhead. It apdeared, from the opening of Mr. Knowles, that the defendants, with several other gentlemen, f orme d themselves into a committee in the year 1837-8, for th e purpose of erecting a new church at Woodside, where there existed a great want of church accommodation.. Plans were adver tised for, and the plaintiffs among other competitors sent in theirs, which, as they alleged, were accepted; but, at a sub sequent period, the desqn was altogether changed, the re sult of which was the present handsome st ructure o f the Holy Trinity Church at Woodside, by Messrs. Cun n i ng h am and Holme. The plaintiffs , not being able to o bt a i n any satisfaction, were compelled to bring the present action. They claimed to recover £73 3s. Three witnesses were called, at the end of whose testimony Mr. Knowles said he could not carry the case any fa r th er, and he would consent to a nonsuit. The Court rose at half-past eight o'clock. Seven cases remained to be disposed of, several of which are expected to be of considerable length ; and as the le arne d Judge must leave Liverpool to-night (Tuesday), for th e opening of the Term to-morrow , it i s not unlikely that there will be several remands. At the Warwick assizes, la 3 t week, a Captain Lampet re covered a verdict, with £5O damages, from a Captain Sea raucke, for an assault in the public parade at Leamingto n Spa. The £5O has been handed over t o a public charity. The trial of Montague Clarke, for shooting at his stepfather. the Rev. H. P. Bennett, took place at the Gloucester assizes on Thursday, when the Jury returned a verdict of " Not guilty." A BLACKING MAKER'S WILL.-021 Tuesday week Lord Langdale gave judgment in the great will cause of Day e. Croft. It referred to the extensive estate devised by Mr. Day, late of the opulent firm of Messrs. Day and Martin, the well-known blacking manufacturers. There are 75 parties to the suit, and about 30 counsel have been engaged in it. It has been frequently before the Court. His lordship, after recapitulating the facts of the case, stated that the parties having agreed, he had confirmed the decision of the parties, and the numerous annuitants under the will of the testator might now come in and claim the beneficial interest created for them, whilst at the same time the interest of Mrs. Day, the testator's widow, of his daughter, Mrs. C. Claggett, and of the Blind Men's Charity Fund, to which the testator be queathed the sum of £lOO,OOO, were all efficiently provided for and protected. The question of costs was deferred. THE SPECIAL COMMISSION.—From a parliamentary re turn just published, we learn, that the total sum already expended during the late special commission amounts to £17,533 12s. 9d.: viz., £7,103 ISs. Id. at Chester and Li verpool, ateip i o c ol hT , ehste r e each of which places the judges sat four days ; j u u n d d ge ..o,sl9 14s. Bd. at Stafford, where the judges sat 13 di and Liverpool, variousi tenis of this judges'es e e n . d p i e t n u s r e e s were a 2 s Os follow id of 2 c . e 74 r 8 7 , x:160 17s . d l . 7s ; .d;itfteoe,s Cheshire,t to counsel clerks, 733 2 s9d Lan cashire, fees to solicit ors an d ex p enses o f w it nesses , £2,000 . . Stafford,.. the judges' expenses were £ 329 10s. ; judges' offi cers, .4, ! 86 2s. ; fees to counsel and clerks, £1,091 14s. ; fees to solicitors, £2,718 12s. 9d. ; expenses of witnesses, £1, 979 17s. 9d. ; travelling and hotel expenses of counsel, solicitors. &c., previously to and at the late special commi ss i on , 4138 Is. 2d. ; sheriff, under-sheriff, and gaoler, £475 17s. THE COMET. übr c g )br o e b rvations, it It would appear from a statement in one of the Pa r i s journals, that the parabolic elements and orbit of the comet perfectly utn,ost k p n r o e w ci n si , o t n e . e calculationssixco complete ple having te v t ia l rd and one m of ad i e ts a il t lu t s h tri e o L us ux c e h m ie b f, o a w r i e t h e o t w he under see s ' the l)a ve bee n direction Observatory, h a ve be e, Eugene Bouvard, and thers. ~ . M M. Langier, have been executed by the two first named he calculations astronomers, on the one hand, and by M. 130),Tmg and able of his colleagues on the other. We subjoin the former, which are those carried to the hi e results of perfection : highest degree of Period at which the comet was nearest the sun at the perihelium (which takes place when the Or passage reached the summit of the parabola) : 27th Februaemet has 4-10ths of the astronomical day, which is reekornYeid at the noon. Distance of the comet from the sun, at its from proximity or perihelium distance, with reference to ti g e restest radius of the terrestrial orbit, taken as unit, or which' mean same thing, to the mean distance of the earth to the is t 7 1 , 1! 0,00348, or about the 3-1000dths, rather more than the su- t - i ; of the sun ; which, therefore, cannot have been touch r e a d di the cornet's passage. Longitude perihelium : 27811. 45 m. 5 - b Inclination of the orbit of the comet, or measure of the sec. which the plane of its orbit forms with that of the eeii t!'ngle of the terrestrial orbit : 35deg. 31min. 30see. LongiFulc, or the ascending node : 2deg. 13min. By the ascending node °f meant the point of intersection of the ecliptic, and of theeis orbit of the comet when it goes from the south to the n of the ecliptic. Movement : retrograde, or in a direction contrary to the movement of the planets, that is to say, f on east to west. r°l2l The astronomical pupils of the observatory have drawn u a detailed table of th e very remarkable circumstances of the movement of the comet in the vicinity of the perihelium. It is seen by this table, firstly, that from the 2th to the 28th of February, the comet, supposed to be seen from the centre of the sun, went o ver the enormous distance of 292 deg. i n t twen ty-four hours ; secondly, hat from twenty-four minutes after nine to thirty-five minutes after eleven, it passed from its ascending node to its descending node (the two Opposite points o f intersection of ecliptic and of the cometary orbit,) thus going ou r deg. in the interval of two hours ; thirdly, t h at in twenty-four hours, its latitude heliocentric or relative to the sun's cen tre varied also very considerably. The difference was o f a bove 90 deg. It is seen, likewise, that the vector radii, or distances of the comet, also changed much in the same interval of time. M. :trap concludes the narrative of this pas acce/cre peregrination of our comet by stating a fact more curious than all the preceding ones ; it is that from a comparison of the heliogeoce ntric latitudies, m t must the comet have found itself twi ce in conjunction with the sun ; that is to say, produced two successive inverse eclipses, the first at the moment of the passage by the ascending node, et twenty_ four minutes past nine in the evening, the moment at which the comet was, with regard to us, behind the sun's disc; the second at about fifteen minutes past twelve at night. The comet was then between the earth and the sun. But, con comet the hour, it may be conceived that it could only b e seen in the other, hemisphere. M. Asago adds, that the sur face of our globe was rather near being swept by the tail of the comet. This extraordinary phenomenon would inevitably have taken place if the tail doha been lnger and thin ner. or if it had moved in the plane f the ecliptic. The learned secretary regrets much, as a scientific man, that it has been otherwise _____.................. gentleman Ccsrom HOUSE FRAUDS. —On Wednesday last an in quisition was held before two commissioners at the Sheriff's Court, London, for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of money owing frem.thaEtdvivnatrhdisViindsetlaanneed, w Ch h a ic r h les ig li b u u re t l on to e Her Majesty's duties on gloves imported by th em abroad. It appears, from out of mane , a conspiracy has for some time existed between the defendants and pa Custona-house officer named Tye to defraud the revenue. How successful this has been will be thus causing a loss to the Crow of n e best e office gatheredoffroph e t lisenl evidence eir o t f h A e i c r. us Bullock, s,w a 0 eposed ll that ofthree coo o f goods brought by the Harlequin, i t ; 1840, one which held 704 dozen pair of gloves, and should have paid £176 duty, only paid £4l 7s. 6d., the amount f . f. d u 1 t 3 y 4 on l2 5 1 . 8 6 5 d d . (); n o f zaenddpaanirosiber which held 921 dozen p a i r , which ought to have paid £231 duty, in reality erd , and £7O 12s. 5d.. by which the Crown lost upwards o f Y x ra i Again, that upon several cases goods,ef_e which were received by the Belfast and William J011a... vessels, the duty payable was £495, the duty paid £l3O IS. 2d., thus cheating Crown out of £364 13s. 10d• On the 11th of January, the the defendants cleared from the Belfast goods on wiic h "l ' duty payable was £lB5, but on which they did rot the p a than £44 4s. 4d. Other and similar instances we l r ' e mote proved against these persons, and the jury returned a verdictalso for the Crown, finding the amount of debt due b . the Ist of March 1 Y the de fendants between , 840, and the 31st December, 1841, £5, 238 . of REBECCA ASB HER DATIGIITERS.—We regret to that Rebecca and her daughters are still at their old state the lower part of this count work i y, .notwithatanding th n 'ties to discover e utmost exertions of the author] _. the parties implicated in these outrageous proceedings. About twelve o'clock o the night of Friday last, Rebecca and a numerous party her daughters proceeded to Pwlltrap, near St. Clears : ofa after arriving at the gate, the following colloquy t oo k ' , a " between the old lady and her youthful progeny. RebeccaPiaci! l ea ning on her staff, hobbled up to the gate, and , greatly surprised that her progress along the road seemed d'Children, (said she, • interrupted. gat • e staff,) there is some.thing. put up here, I can't go em u e with her --." W hat is it, mother?nothi ng Daughters your w• ,6 Rebeccay a.— I do not know, children ; lam well." not see old, and can. Daughters.—" , ,Shall we come on, mother, out of your way ? and remove it Rebecco.—" Stop, let me see, (feeling the staff;) it seems like a great gate put across gate with her ft y our old mother. the road to stop Danglaters.—" We will break it, hinder you on your journey.,,mother, nothing shall Rebecca.--" No, let us see, perhaps ' the lock.) No, children, it is bolted it will open, (feeling not go on. What is to be done?" and locked, and I vas the It must be taken d you and your children must pass.,, own s mother, because Rebecca.—" Off with it then u business here. , my dear children, it has no Wi t h that the whole of the children than ten minutes there was no t set to, and in less posts remaining. Rebecca and h e r a vestige of the gate nor by, eying co m ple an d immediately disappeared, children then pa h d es truction. The London ted the work of police th e time, but we are not awareice were at the Blue B oar at ma ti o n of what was • that they had the least inti going forward, be of no avail. — Carm a rthen Jou d, until their service s could Journal. ATROCIOUS OUTRAGE.—Th e neighbourhood of Boher buoy was gre a tly excited onMonday evening by th e re p ort of a boy having been found cu t from ear to ear, in a 11d almost lifeless, with h is throat . onesome piece of ground ad j oining the new barracks. On foul deed wasinquiry it was ascertain ed that the perpetrated re giment, named Thomas Rbayffne young soldier of the 36th privately induced the little fellowrty, t a sell s . native.li pair 9 , f of Galway.o and who a regimental trousers for him, and a o t dusit a thrown from his window the boots, and subsequently the trousers but it appears the boots were taken off by some person who heard them fall, and the young accomplice, not being up to time, found only the trousers. The soldier, exasperated by the loss, knocked the boy down, and with a knife, which be drew from his pocket, cut his helpless victim's throat acro t ss in a shocking manner. The poor creature was blee d ing h ° death, and was removed to his father's house, w h ere Surgeon was Promptly attended by , the surgeon of the 36th, and erv. Immediately Wilkinson, who entertain hopesonof recov . _ I n xwell, On the same on hearing of the outrage, Col el 3 ssive of the horror evening, issued a regimental order expre he felt at a soldier of the 36th being c harged invent with such t to e adro city, and calling upon every soldier in the ren ea. your to discover the lawless wretch who had disgraced his uniform, by so inhuman a deed. The commanding officer also directed every man to be confined to barracks till the assassin was found out. This prompt and well-advised order was read in every soldier's room t h a t evening, and had the desired effect, for the suspected party was soon discovered, and lodged in the military prison ; and the Colonel issued a second regimental order yesterday morning, conveying th e great pleasure he had in rescinding the previous order confi ning the men to barracks, and that it was a consolation & him to know that the prisoner was none of his old and va lued soldiers, but a young recruit, undisciplined and unprin cipled, who, during his brief military career, had been re peatedly a delinquent. The accus ed was yesterday escorted, handcuffed, by a serjeaut's guard, to the police-office, and handed over to the civil authorities by the adjutant of the corps, and remanded for th fuerther exam rs of inat his ion own regiments H e w hooted out of barracks soldieandignante they b a y t th is disgraceful conduct. Lim: so i weer rick Chr0nic1eL....................., Th e Neu, York Times says :—" The idea of a mermaid standing over a kettle of boiling water, cooking her own tail, is rather incongruous." •• ,•